國立大學學生事務工作自我評鑑之現況與問題-後設評鑑觀點

Meta-evaluation Viewpoints on Self-evaluation of Status Quo & Problems of National University Students Affairs

詹鴻敏(Hung-Min Chan)

指導教授 ： 張雪梅

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/公民教育與活動領導學系在職進修碩士班/碩士(2006年)

摘要

國立大學學生事務工作自我評鑑之現況與問題-後設評鑑觀點
摘　要
鑑於國內高等教育學生事務評鑑工作，歷來均以配合外部評鑑辦理，是以教育部訓育委員會自2004至2006年期間，以獎補助政策鼓勵各國立大學校院辦理學生事務自我評鑑，三年來計有三十五所國立大學校院首開學生事務工作辦理自發性自我評鑑之風氣；自此，國內學務工作者甫體認建立自我評鑑機制之必要性；惟評鑑奠基至此，似仍有其不足與待改進之處，如能輔以後設評鑑觀點，探討其實施現況與問題，則更有助於自我評鑑品質的提升與改善。
基此，本研究先採文件分析方式，針對辦理學校之自我評鑑計畫執行表冊內涵進行分析；其次參考美國教育評鑑標準聯合委員會（JCSEE）所發展之有效性、可行性、適切性和精確性等四類屬性標準，建構本研究之工具，並以辦理學務自我評鑑學校之學務人員為研究對象，進行問卷抽樣調查；從問卷調查分析發現之問題，進一步訪談部分學務長與主要承辦人，探討評鑑歷程實際困難與改善作為。
研究結果發現，我國國立大學學務工作自我評鑑計畫達成後設評鑑指標之程度，依序分別為適切性、有效性、精確性、可行性；研究對象之各校雖多屬初次辦理評鑑，然於計劃作為時，均能明確敘述評鑑目的與範圍，其執行程序符合邏輯，且都能獲得學務長積極支持，學務人員得以透過組織學習模式共同參與計畫之訂定與執行，是屬本次辦理所見優點；其他如評鑑結果檢討與運用不足，學務人員對自我評鑑意涵認知模糊，以及對精確性評鑑標準重視程度相對偏低等，乃待改善之缺失。經由上述研究結果，提出下列建議：
一、大學學生事務單位方面
（一）發展服務導向之資訊系統，降低人性因素造成之評鑑阻礙
（二）落實學務工作評估評量，整備有效自我評鑑的條件
（三）訂定學務自我評鑑法規，辦理學務行政、方案與服務之自我評鑑
（四）兼顧評鑑之有效、可行、適切與精確性，並善用評鑑報告溝通與改進
二、教育行政當局方面
（一）辦理區域教育訓練，培育具學務及評鑑專業知能之學務評鑑專才
（二）發展學務專業標準、訪評專家名單及學務評鑑資料庫
三、未來的研究方面
（一）持續探討學務自我評鑑之阻礙因素，供學務單位據以規劃適切評鑑計畫
（二）研究先進國家學務工作評鑑之制度與作法，發展適合國內學務工作方案評鑑之檢核表
（三）選擇單一個案學校，深入瞭解學務自我評鑑，是否有助於改善學務工作及發展其特色
（四）探討學生事務單位領導人員專任與兼任制度，對學務工作組織效能之影響

關鍵字

自我評鑑 ； 後設評鑑 ； 重要-表現分析法 ； 學生事務工作

並列摘要

Meta-evaluation Viewpoints on Self-evaluation of Status Quo & Problems of National University Students Affairs
Abstract
In view of the fact that evaluation work on domestic student affairs of higher education students has been done in coordination with outer evaluation, the Student Affairs Committee of the Ministry of Education has rewarded and promoted national universities to carry out self-evaluation on student affairs from 2004 through 2006. In the past three years 35 national universities have pioneered in spontaneous evaluation on student affairs, and ever since, domestic student affairs workers came to realize through experience the necessity of the self-evaluation mechanism. Whereas the foundation of evaluation has been laid, deficiency exists to be improved. In case that meta-evaluation viewpoint joined to explore the status quo and problems of its practice, quality of self-evaluation might be brightly polished.
This research firstly adopted methods of document analysis to analyze the connotation of the plan practice records; then, through referring to the four criteria namely utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy developed by JCSEE of the USA, the tool of this research had been designed and questionnaires samply circulated and answered; and, after the problems found through questionnaire analysis, deans of student affairs as well as main affair undertakers had been interviewed to traverse the practical perplexities and possible bettering.
This research result reveals that four levels of meta-evaluation over self-evaluation on student affairs are involved in proper sequence: propriety, utility, accuracy, and feasibility; in spite that most of the research objects were those initially engaging in evaluation, the merits fell on the facts they all could precisely interprete the purposes and realm of the evaluation, there was much logics in the practical procedures highly supported by deans of student aggairs, and staff of student affairs could access the organizational learning model to coordinately make and practice the plans; other room remaining for improvement covers those such as self-criticism on evaluation results and on insufficient exercise, student affairs staff having but a hazy understanding about evaluation connotation, in addition to their attaching low importance to precise evaluation criteria. Through the above-men-tioned research results, suggestions are offered as below:
1.On University Student Affairs Units
(1)To develop service-oriented data systems, and decrease evaluation hindrance of humanity factors
(2)To implement evaluations on student affairs, and reorganize effective conditions for self-evaluation
(3)To formulate rules and regulations of self-evaluation, and to conduct self-
evaluation on administration, projects, and service of student affairs
(4)To take utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy into account of evaluation and properly use evaluation reports for improvements
2.On Educational Executive Authorities
(1)To arrange district administrative education training, and cultivate professionals with expertise of evaluation on student affairs
(2)To lay down criteria for professionals on student affairs, and to file expert lists, and question data
3.On Future Researches
(1)To continuously explore the hindrance factors in self-evaluation for units of student affairs to refrain from
(2)To study systems and methods of self-evaluation on student affairs in advanced countries, and develop scaling charts suitable for domestic student affairs evaluations
(3)To focus on a single school and penetrate into its self-evaluation to see if it helps improve student affairs and develop its unique features
(4)To probe into how the full-time and part-time systems of student affairs leaders affect the organizational efficiency

並列關鍵字

Important-Performance Analysis ； Meta-evaluation ； Self-evaluation ； Student Affairs ； IPA

參考文獻

許媛翔（2006a）。Dr. Kells：國際高教評鑑大師，由內而外的大學自我評鑑與外部評鑑。評鑑雙月刊，2。

張雪梅（2005）。大專院校學生事務工作評鑑指標建構之研究。教育部。

曾淑惠（2006b）。高職學校評鑑阻礙之研究。教育政策論壇，9（3），73-98。

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

王保進（2006）。大學校院系所自我評鑑實務。論文發表於社團法人台灣評鑑協會舉辦之「如何進行自我評鑑研討會」，臺北市。