| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 教育研究所 === 97 === The thesis aims to investigate the change of external governance and the trend of quality assurance in higher education, with that of the Nordic countries as case study, by the methods of document analysis and comparative analysis. In Chapter 1, the factors inducing change in higher education external governance are illustrated. Chapter 2 discusses the definition, framework, and models of higher education governance, with an emphasis on how market mechanism has affected the higher education evaluation. Chapter 3 combines the proceeding analysis of higher education evaluation with the trend of external governance, and then shows the characteristics of the quality assurance accompanying the change of external governance. In Chapter 4, the researcher explores the trend of quality assurance in higher education, by the definition of quality assurance, quality assurance of higher education in the Europe, and international organizations.Furthermore, Chapter 5 focuses on the reforms of higher education in the Nordic countries responding to the change of external governance and quality assurance in higher education. Finally, five conclusions are made in Chapter 6 including: (1) Governance of higher education is diverse and complex. (2) Market forces have been promoted to the change of external governance in higher education. (3) Quality assurance of higher education will become an international trend. (4) There is close relationship between quality assurance and the transformation of external governance in higher education. (5) Market mechanism has become one of the most important forces leading the transformation of external governance and quality assurance of higher education in the Nordic countries.
According to the findings and discoveries above, six suggestions are proposed as follows: (1) Implementation of policy and reform of higher education should be arranged in proper sequence and be executed step by step. (2) Formulating policy of higher education evaluation should consider socio-cultural context. (3) Developing policy of higher education evaluation should have strategic plan. (4) Feedback and follow-up mechanism should be strengthened in higher education evaluation. (5) Stakeholders should be taken into account in evaluation process. (6) Higher education institutions should hold accountable for quality assurance of education.
|
|---|
