|Abstract: ||近年來，為提升高等教育品質，教育部提出許多卓越導向政策，包括「五年五百億頂尖大學及研究中心計畫」、「獎勵大學教學卓越計畫」、「研究型大學整合計畫」等，除了大學評鑑機制已在各校正式展開外，亦於《大學法》二十一條明文規定「大學得建立教師評鑑制度，以做為教師升等、續聘、長期聘任、停聘、不續聘及獎勵之重要參考」。我國海事校院亦積極自訂教師評鑑方法、程序及相關規定，主要在促進台灣航輪科系之教師評鑑制度能更周全。 研究方法部分，先以文獻分析進行指標的刪修和確定，歸納出台灣海事校院教師評鑑之四項主要構面及13項評鑑指標，採用層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process，AHP)」，運用Export Choice 11.5軟體，作為資料統計分析工具，從研究資料中，具體的求得主要構面以及各項指標權重，採用半結構訪談法，完成台灣海事校院教師評鑑指標系統。 本研究結果發現：「教學表現」、「研究計畫或產學合作」、「著作發表」、「輔導與服務表現」等四大方面，是影響當前海事校院教師評鑑主要因素；本研究總計共回收有效問卷15份，根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下：一、在第一層級台灣海事校院教師評鑑指標中，最重要項目為「教學表現」，權重高達48.9％，其次之評鑑指標為「輔導與服務表現」，權重為22％，再其次之評鑑指標為「研究計畫或產學合作」，權重為14.7％，最後之評鑑指標為「著作發表」，權重為14.3％；第二層級指標中，最重要項目為「教材內容」，權重高達20.7％；次要指標在「教學表現」中，最重要項目為「教材內容」，權重高達52.7％；次要指標在「研究計畫與產學合作」中，最重要項目為「產學合作計畫研發成果技術授權」，權重高達36.5％；次要指標在「著作發表」中，最重要項目為「學術著作」，權重高達55.9％；次要指標在「輔導與服務表現」中，最重要項目為「導師」，權重高達28.5％。二、對於航輪科系的未來發展及特殊性，不適合用一般大學評鑑的方式來辦理教師評鑑，應另訂具航輪科系特色的評鑑指標。 航輪科系教師評鑑制度，宜考量各學院、系所之特殊性，以及教師職級、專業背景或個別需求，彈性調整並作恰當之要求。本研究之成果可提供教育行政機構、海事院校與航輪科系教師，依其指標及權重作為參考依據。 關鍵詞：教師評鑑、教師評鑑指標、層級分析法、航輪科系。|
The Ministry of Education proposed a number of excellence-oriented policies in recent years to enhance the quality of higher education, including the “Project of Top Universities and Research Centers in Five Years with Fifty Billion”, “Excellent University Teaching Reward Project” and the “Integration Project of Research Universities”, etc. In addition to the university evaluation mechanism which has been officially launched in colleges and universities, Article 21st of the "University Act" also expressly provides that "the university could create a teacher evaluation system to serve as important reference of promotion, reappointment, long-term employment, suspension, not reappointment and awards for the teaching staff.” The maritime colleges of our country also actively customize teacher evaluation methods, procedures and relevant regulations to facilitate a more comprehensive teacher evaluation system for Navigation and Marine Engineering Departments in Taiwan. About the research methods, first we conducted revisions and identifications of indicators through literature reviews, and then we summarized four major dimensions and 13 evaluation indicators for the teacher evaluation of maritime colleges in Taiwan. By applying AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and the Export Choice 11.5 statistical software as tools for data analysis, we specifically calculated major dimensions and indicator weights from the research data, and teacher evaluation system of maritime colleges in Taiwan was thus completed by semi-structured interviews. The study found that “teaching performance”, “research projects or industry-academic cooperation”, “publication works” and “counseling and service performance” are four major aspects affecting the current teacher evaluation system of maritime colleges. In this study, a total of 15 valid questionnaires were retrieved, and we summarized the main conclusions according to results and analysis of the research as follows: First, the most significant component in the first-level of teacher evaluation indicators of maritime colleges in Taiwan is “teaching performance”, which weights up to 48.9%; the second evaluation indicator is “counseling and service performance”, which weights 22%; the third evaluation indicator is “research projects or industry-university cooperation”, which weights 14.7%; and the final evaluation indicator is “publication works”, which weights 14.3%. Among the second-level indicators, the most significant component is “teaching materials”, which weights up to 20.7%; the most important component in the second indicators of “teaching performance” is “teaching materials”, which weights up to 52.7%; the most significant component in the second indicator of "Research projects and industry-university cooperation” is the “Industry-University cooperation program R & D result technology licensing”, which weights up to 36.5%; the most significant component in the second indicator of “publication works” is the “academic works”, which weights up 55.9%; the most significant component in the second indicator of “counseling and service performance” is “mentors”, which weights up to 28.5%. Secondly, teacher evaluation for future development and characteristic of Navigation and Marine Engineering Departments is not applicable to the accreditation of general universities. It is advised that other featured evaluation indicators should be provided for the teacher evaluation of Navigation and Marine Engineering Departments. Teacher evaluation system of Navigation and Marine Engineering Departments should reflect the characteristics of each college and department, as well as the rank of teacher, professional background or individual needs. It should be adjusted flexibly with appropriate requirements attached. Results of this study may be provided to educational administrative agencies, maritime institutions and teachers of Navigation and Marine Engineering Departments and be regarded as reference according to the indicators and weights. Keywords:Faculty Evaluation, Faculty Evaluation Indicators, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Navigation and Marine Engineering Departments.