研究旨在透過將個案學校兩階段辦理系所內部品質保證的設計與規劃進行探討，透過文件分析與半結構式訪談，瞭解大學系所內部品質保證在組織規劃、指標發展、執行程序與支持系統之規劃，希冀能夠提供大學系所內部品質保證之政策建言，共邀請12位參與個案學校規劃與執行的主管參與訪談。在組織規劃之研究成果發現：（1）第一階段組織規劃係採取由上而下的模式；第二階段採由下而上的意見彙集、做成決策；（2）第二階段更加強化學院層級的角色與功能，具有溝通協調、資源分配、協助改善的輔導與支持角色；（3）「自我評鑑指導委員會」納入許多外部委員，除了給予法規制定等原則性建議外，另具有推廣學校特色、協助定位等功能；（4）第二階段內部品質保證的辦理方式，係經過校內主管討論取得共識；（5）目前參與者只有系所主管、行政人員與少數的教師，如何讓內部品質保證成為大家共同努力的方向。在指標發展的研究結果發現：（1）兩階段指標發展已從以往參照外部評鑑機構的規劃，更加強調學校特色與系所溝通之共識；（2）指標發展更加著重系所的多元與差異，並納入對於系所發展方向的期待。在執行程序之研究結果發現：（1）訪評委員產生的方式將影響到系所真誠展現問題的意願；（2）內部品質保證的重要任務，在於發現問題，才有辦法進一步尋找解決方法（3）系所發展重點的擬定會考量校務發展計畫，增加連結與整體性；（4）全校結構性的問題需由校方進行檢討與規劃。在支持系統之研究結果發現：IR制度之建立除減輕系所負擔外，也帶給學院與校方應負擔的角色省思。
研究結論針對高等教育機構之建議為（1）重視利害關係人的觀點，是促成對於內部品質保證認同的關鍵；（2）指標發展兼顧整體校務運作與系所特色；（3）實地訪評委員之遴聘重視系所專業與個別差異；（4）選定發展重點聚焦核心問題改善；（5）應減輕系所資料蒐集之負擔。針對後續系所內部品質保證之建議為（1）內部品質保證是一長期、循環且整體的過程，校方可盤點相關工具並加以系統化回饋；（2）內部品質保證除了系所承擔責任外，校方亦可利用相關資料，從上位的角度處理結構性的問題；（3）透過減量指標內容，著重在重要的發展面向，並降低系所壓力與排斥感；（4）制度規劃應強調改善為核心，協助系所面對問題；（5）校內各項制度應相互串連，以提升內部品質保證。

The research refers to discussing the design and planning of internal quality assurance in two stages of the case university, through document analysis and semi-structured interviews, to understand the planning of internal quality assurance in the university in organizational planning, indicator development, implementation procedures and support systems. A total of 12 supervisors who are involved in the planning and implementation of individual case university were invited to participate in the interviews.
In the research results of organizational planning, it is found that: (1) the first stage of organizational planning adopts a top-down model; the second stage adopts bottom-up opinions to gather and make decisions; (2) the second stage strengthens the college Hierarchical roles and functions, with the role of communication and coordination, resource allocation, and guidance and support for improvement; (3) The “Self-evaluation Steering Committee” includes many external members. Features, assist positioning and other functions; (4) The decision of implement the internal quality assurance in the second stage, the department has reached a consensus after discussion with the supervisors at university; (5) At present, only the department director, administrative staff and a few teachers are involved. The research results of indicator development found that: (1) the two-stage indicator development has been based on the planning of external evaluation agencies from the past, and more emphasis is placed on the consensus between the university characteristics and the communication between departments; (2) the development of indicators pays more attention to the diversity and differences of departments, and include expectations for the development direction of the department. The results of the research on the implementation procedures found that: (1) the way the visiting members are formed will affect the department's willingness to sincerely present problems; (2) the important task of internal quality assurance is to find problems; (3) The development priorities of the department will consider the university development plan to increase the connection and integrity; (4) The structural problems of the whole school need to be reviewed and planned by the university. In the research results of the support system, it was found that the establishment of the IR system not only relieved the burden of the department, but also brought reflections on the roles of the college and the university.
The conclusions of the study are the following suggestions for higher education institutions: (1) Paying attention to stakeholder perspectives is the key to fostering acceptance of internal quality assurance; (2) The development of indicators takes into account the overall operation of the school and the characteristics of the department; (3) The selection of on-site reviewers should respect the major and individual differences of the department; (4) The important development aspects should focus on the improvement of core problems; (5) The burden of data collection should be reduced. Suggestions for the follow-up internal quality assurance:(1) Internal quality assurance is a long-term, cyclic and overall process, and the university can take stock of relevant tools and give feedback in a systematic way; (2) In addition to the responsibility of the department, the school can also make use of relevant information, Handle structural issues from a higher-level perspective; (3) Focus on important development aspects by reducing the content of indicators, and reduce the pressure and sense of rejection; (4) The system planning should emphasize improvement as the core, and assist the department to face problems; (5) The various systems in the university should be linked to each other to improve the internal quality assurance.

一、中文部分
丁時達、蘇怡蓮、曾寶儀（2003）。紮根理論研究。載於潘慧玲（主編）， 教育研究的取徑：概念與應用（初版）（頁297-328）。高等教育。

王保進（2013）。自我評鑑潮流下反映辦學成效之評鑑項目設計。評鑑雙月刊，42，16-21。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201303-201303120003-201303120003-16-21

王蓉貞（2021）。東吳大學系所自辦品質保證之經驗分享。評鑑雙月刊，90，35-39。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-202103-202103120006-202103120006-35-39

王麗雲（2013）。大學自辦外部評鑑的作法與展望。評鑑雙月刊，44，30-33。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201307-201307080005-201307080005-30-33

江東亮（2016）。第一、二週期系所評鑑結果的啟示。評鑑雙月刊，62，14-16。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201607-201607140015-201607140015-14-16

池俊吉（2019）。高等教育機構內部品質文化提升。評鑑雙月刊，79，19-21。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201905-201905270004-201905270004-19-21

吳建華、謝發昱、黃俊峰、陳銘凱（2003）。個案研究。載於潘慧玲（主編）， 教育研究的取徑：概念與應用（初版）（頁199-236）。高等教育。

吳柏軒（2017，2月8日）。簡化五成訪視評鑑 大學系所評鑑今年停辦。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1968503

李培鈺、孫婧雅（2017）。用後設評鑑取向探討臺灣教師專業發展評鑑之初階評 鑑人員。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（8），86-91。
https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-201708-201708020021-201708020021-86-91

李懿芳（2018）。日本NIAD-QE各週期大學評鑑基準調整之探析。評鑑雙月刊，74，34-39。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201807-201807040022-201807040022-34-39

阮淑萍（2020）。科技校院自我評鑑內部評鑑人員倫理敏感度之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺北科技大學。

周華琪（2018）。澳洲高等教育品質與標準署（TEQSA）之品質保證機制簡介。評鑑雙月刊，75，14-17。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201809-201809120004-201809120004-14-17

林劭仁（2018）。大學推動內部品質保證之國際觀點。評鑑雙月刊，76，11-13。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201811-201811080011-201811080011-11-13

林劭仁（2021）。高等教育品質保證的國際觀點與國內變革。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（1），82-88。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-202101-202012310021-202012310021-82-88

林劭仁、池俊吉（2019）。高教育品質保證與校務研究。載於楊瑩（主編），各國大學品質保證與校務研究（頁1-20）。財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。

林劭仁、許耀宇（2017）。大學校務及系所評鑑結果相關性分析。評鑑雙月刊，70，24-25。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201711-201711020014-201711020014-24-25

林松柏、陳庭逸（2016）。改善高等教育評鑑之道：基於評鑑利害關係人之觀點。臺灣教育評論月刊，5（3），29-34。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-201603-201603070021-201603070021-29-34

林芳伃、楊燦、龔泉、侯永琪（2019）。全球高等教育趨勢及學術績效責任對品質保證之啟示。評鑑雙月刊，82，11-14。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201911-201911220008-201911220008-11-14

林淑均（2014）。校本課程評鑑的適用取向-回應式評鑑。臺灣教育評論月刊，3（3），103-108。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20130114001-201403-201403120020-201403120020-103-108

林靜慧、陳俊宏（2017）。校務研究與內部品質保證。評鑑雙月刊，65，9-12。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201701-201701060022-201701060022-9-12

邱憶惠（1999）。個案研究法：質化取向。教育研究，7，113-127。https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/JournalContentDetail?SysId=A99020678

侯永琪（2012）。國際化與高等教育品質保證機構之品質保證機制建立。臺灣教育評論月刊，1（8），28-29。https://doi.org/10.6791/TER.201206.0028

侯永琪、林劭仁、郭昭佑、陳慧蓉、池俊吉、周華琪（2017）。大學校院自辦外部評鑑及認可的實施及其影響。評鑑雙月刊，69，14-16。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201709-201709050010-201709050010-14-16

侯永琪、唐慧慈、陳郁婷（2017）。高教品保機構在跨國資歷認可的角色及未來推展。評鑑雙月刊，68，7-10。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201707-201707060014-201707060014-7-10

財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會（2016）。105年度大學校院通識教育暨第二週期系所評鑑實施計畫。https://rnd.chu.edu.tw/var/file/53/1053/img/417/750293006.pdf

財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會（2020a）。大專校院委託辦理品質保證認可實施計畫（111年度適用）。https://www.heeact.edu.tw/media/14065/111%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E5%A7%94%E8%A8%97%E8%BE%A6%E7%90%86%E5%93%81%E8%B3%AA%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%89%E8%AA%8D%E5%8F%AF%E5%AF%A6%E6%96%BD%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB-1090909%E7%89%88.pdf

財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會（2020b）。大專校院自辦品質保證認定實施計畫。https://www.heeact.edu.tw/media/15322/%E5%A4%A7%E5%B0%88%E6%A0%A1%E9%99%A2%E8%87%AA%E8%BE%A6%E5%93%81%E4%BF%9D%E8%AA%8D%E5%AE%9A%E5%AF%A6%E6%96%BD%E8%A8%88%E7%95%AB-109%E5%B9%B47%E6%9C%88.pdf

財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會大專校院自辦品質保證認定作業辦法（2019）。https://www.heeact.edu.tw/media/12934/%E5%A4%A7%E5%B0%88%E6%A0%A1%E9%99%A2%E8%87%AA%E8%BE%A6%E5%93%81%E8%B3%AA%E4%BF%9D%E8%AD%89%E8%AA%8D%E5%AE%9A%E4%BD%9C%E6%A5%AD%E8%BE%A6%E6%B3%95.pdf

馬扶風（2018）。我國與澳洲高等教育品質保證機制之比較研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立暨南國際大學。

高淑清（2008a）。質性研究的18堂課：首航初探之旅。麗文文化。

高淑清（2008b）。質性研究的18堂課：揚帆再造之旅。麗文文化。

教育部統計處（2021）。教育統計指標之國際比較。教育部。取自https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/International_Comparison/2021/i2021.pdf

教育部試辦認定大學校院自我評鑑機制及結果審查作業原則（2013）。

郭昭佑（2005）。學校自我評鑑可行性探究。教育政策論壇，8（1），159-184。http://ericdata.com/tw/detail.aspx?no=46818

郭昭佑、張廷祥、康佳鈴（2020）。教師專業發展評鑑之後設評鑑研究。教育研究月刊，309，59-79。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602020010309004
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。五南。

陳至中（2017，2月8日）。大學系所評鑑教育部規畫停辦。中央社，https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201702085018.aspx

陳曼玲（2013）。看問題：自辦評鑑與外部評鑑的拔河。評鑑雙月刊，42，5-9。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201303-201303120003-201303120003-5-9

陳慧蓉（2016）。大學質性評鑑的挑戰：系所與外部專家評鑑觀點的一致性分析。當代教育研究季刊，24（2），75-109。https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2016.2402.03

黃政傑、張嘉育（2010）。我國大學系所評鑑之問題分析與改進方向。教育政策論壇，13（2），43-76。http://ericdata.com/tw/detail.aspx?no=46685

黃淑玲、黃信嘉、廖良文、沈碩彬（2018）。校務研究之新取徑：質化研究與工具應用。載於黃榮村（總編輯），周懷璞、林世昌（主編），臺灣校務研究理論與技術（頁271-292）。高等教育。

黃嘉莉（2019）。校務研究運作的組織社會學觀及其啟示。載於楊瑩（主編），各國大學品質保證與校務研究（頁281-295）。財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。

黃嘉雄（2006）。析論Stake之回應式教育方案評鑑取向。國立臺北教育大學學報，19（2），1-26。https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/JournalContentDetail?SysId=A06080066

楊正誠（2017）。AACSB遭美國認可組織CHEA「拒絕認可」之分析。評鑑雙月刊，66，50-53。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201703-201703150017-201703150017-50-53

劉世閔（2013）。Nvivo 10在學校行政質性研究之應用：以「校長處事學校人情世故之訪談」一案為例。教育理論與實踐學刊，28，77-119。https://doi.org/10.7038/JETP.201312_(28).0004

劉維琪（2016）。解碼大學評鑑。智勝文化。

潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理。

潘慧玲（2005）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育評鑑的回顧與展望（頁3-36）。心理。

盧鴻興、張有鈞、林寀雯（2018）。簡介於大數據分析方法於校務研究之應用。載於黃榮村（總編輯），周懷璞、林世昌（主編），臺灣校務研究理論與技術（頁133-149）。高等教育。

謝卓君、詹盛如（2013）。歐洲高等教育區大學內部品保制度的發展現況。評鑑雙月刊，42，45-50。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000268-201303-201303120003-201303120003-45-50

Grbich, C.（2009）。簡明質性研究法分析（司徒懿譯）。韋伯。（原著出版於2007年）

二、英文部分
European Higher Education Area (2015, November 2). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the european higher education area. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd Edition). Pearson.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Hou, A. Y-C., Hill, C., Guo, C. Y., Tsai, S., & Castillo, D. R. J. (2020). A Comparative study of relationship between the government and national quality assurance agencies in Australia, Japan, Malaysia and TaiwanL Policy change, governance models, emerging roles. Quality in Higher Education, 26(3), 284-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1778613

Hou, A. Y-C., Kuo, C-Y., Chen K. H-J., Hill, C., Lin, S-R., Chih, J. C-C., & Chou, H-C. C. (2018). The implementation of self-accreditation policy in Taiwan higher education and its challenges to university internal quality assurance capacity building. Quality in Higher Education, 24(3), 238-259. http://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2018.1553496

Kaiser, F., Melo, A. I, Hou, A. Y.C. (2022). Are quality assurance and rankings useful tools to measure ‘ new’ policy issues in higher education? The practices in Europe and Asia. European Journal of Higher Education. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2094816

Leimer, C. (2010, July). Wave of the future? Intergrating IR, outcomes assessment, planning, program review, and accreditation. the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Academic Resource Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Luan, J., Kumar, T., Sujitparapitaya, S., & Bohannon, T. (2012). Exploring and mining data. In Howard, R. D., McLaughlin, G. W., Knight, W. E. (Eds.). The handbook of institutional research (pp. 278-501). Jossey-Bass.

Martin, M. (2018a). Linking external and internal quality assurance. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/linking-external-and-internal-quality-assurance-9255

Martin, M. (2018b). How internal quality assurance can drive success. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180417115058216

Martin, M. (Ed.). (2018c). Internal quality assurance: Enhancing higher education quality and graduate employability. UNESCO.

Martin, M. (2018d). Internal quality assurance and management: How to close the loop between evidence and decision-making. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/internal-quality-assurance-and-management-how-close-loop-between-evidence-and-decision-making-9252

Martin, M., & Lemaître, M. J. (2018). Quality and employability in higher education: Viewing internal quality assurance as a lever for change. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/quality-and-employability-higher-education-viewing-internal-quality-assurance-lever-change-9213

Niemela, H., Okkola, T., Nurkka, A., Kuisma, M., & Tuunila, R. (2014). “Is an accreditation seal worth the effort? “ Observations of programme accreditations in Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(3), 226-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2013-0007

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1990). Foundations of program evaluation. Sage.

Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68(7), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816706800707

Stake, R. E. (2010). Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 180-201. https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/303

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.). Evaluation models (pp.117-142). Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

Tavares, O., Sin, C., & Amaral, A. (2016). Internal quality assurance systems in Portugal: What their strengths and weaknesses reveal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41(7), 1049-1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1064515

Voegtle, E. M., Knill, C., & Dobbins, M. (2011). To what extent does transnational communication drive cross-national policy convergence? The impact of the bologna-process on domestic higher education policies. Higher Education, 61 (1), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9326-6

Wells, P.J. (2019, March).Quality assurance begins at home: Building internal quality cultures. Paper presented at APQN Annual Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://www.eugc.ac.lk/qac/downloads/apqn/apqn-keynote-2.ppt

Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). Longman.

Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.