我國大學教師教學實務升等制度之探究

The Study of the Teaching Track Promotion System in Taiwan’s Higher Education

本研究旨在探討我國大學之教學實務升等制度內涵、實施原因與挑戰。以試辦教學實務升等之19所大學為樣本，運用文件分析法與訪談法為研究方法。研究結果發現，教學實務升等制度之申請門檻重視優良教學表現，送審著作聚焦教學場域並降低研究成果要求，審查項目強調課程教學設計理念、學習成效與成果貢獻。惟送審著作研究範疇之界定略有落差，且各大學送審著作要求寬嚴不一，需有更明確之審查判斷基準。學校實施教學實務升等主因係其定位為教學型大學，教師則多因教學表現優異或採用專門著作升等較為不利而選用。大學實施教學實務升等之挑戰為訂定申請門檻、審查指標及尋覓審查委員，教師則面臨教學研究發表及教學技術報告撰寫等專業發展需求。

The purpose of this study is to explore the implementation of the teaching track promotion system in Taiwan’s higher education, including the system content design, the reasons why universities and faculty chose the teaching track promotion system, and the challenges and perceptions of carrying on this system. The study used 19 universities that have been trialing the teaching track promotion system in Taiwan as the research samples. The study adopted document analysis and interviews as research methods. The results showed that the application requirements of the teaching track promotion system highlighted the faculty’s outstanding teaching performance. The research documents submitted for external review were focused on the teaching field and have lower quantity and quality requirements. The review criteria emphasized the curriculum design, the learning outcomes as well as the contribution. There is a slight gap in the definition of research scope and submitted works between the universities and the Ministry of Education. The system design of each type of university has its characteristics, but the standards for the submitted works and the review standards are different, and more explicit judgment criteria are required. The universities that implemented the teaching track promotion system were due to they are positioned as teaching practice universities, and the faculties chose the teaching track promotion system because of their good teaching performance or disadvantage at traditional research track promotion system. The challenges for universities to implement the teaching track promotion system are developing application requirements and review criteria and seeking suitable reviewers. The faculties faced professional development needs such as publishing teaching research and writing teaching reports.