Study on Constructing the Metaevaluation Checklist of the Faculty Evaluation System of Universities in Taiwan

• Main Authors: Chen hui Yu, 陳惠鈺
• Other Authors: 蘇錦麗
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/97464450533879836496

碩士 === 國立新竹教育大學 === 教育學系碩士班 === 97 === This study aims at developing the metaevaluation checklist of the faculty evaluation of universities in Taiwan based on the second edition of The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators to provide some suggestions to the institutions and people who will apply it. To achieve the purpose, the focus group method was used. There were four focus group meetings held. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: 1.There are four kinds of standards in both the first and second edition of The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators, includes propriety standards, utility standards, feasibility standards and accuracy standards. They also have these factors as follows: the descriptor, the standard, the explanation, the rationale, the guidelines, the common errors, the illustrative case and the supporting documentation. 2. The four kinds of standards and the 27 sub-standards are all suitable for the faculty evaluation of universities in Taiwan. 3.The contents of the metaevaluation checklist of the faculty evaluation system of universities include the explanation for the checklist application and the structure of the checklist. The way to collect the data and the source of the data should be listed in detail and the universities can choose the appropriate methods. 4.The contents of the checkpoints of the metaevaluation checklist should base on the content of the 27 sub-standards in the second edition of The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators 5.The scoring of the metaevaluation checklist of the faculty evaluation system of universities is as follows: If any checkpoint is achieved, one point is gained; if not achieved, no point is gained. Based on the conclusions of the study, two suggestions are proposed to the universities for reviewing the efficiency of the faculty evaluation system, as well as to the further studies for reference.