Meta-evaluation Viewpoints on Self-evaluation of Status Quo & Problems of National University Students Affairs

[[abstract]]Meta-evaluation Viewpoints on Self-evaluation of Status Quo & Problems of National University Students Affairs Abstract In view of the fact that evaluation work on domestic student affairs of higher education students has been done in coordination with outer evaluation, the Student Affairs Committee of the Ministry of Education has rewarded and promoted national universities to carry out self-evaluation on student affairs from 2004 through 2006. In the past three years 35 national universities have pioneered in spontaneous evaluation on student affairs, and ever since, domestic student affairs workers came to realize through experience the necessity of the self-evaluation mechanism. Whereas the foundation of evaluation has been laid, deficiency exists to be improved. In case that meta-evaluation viewpoint joined to explore the status quo and problems of its practice, quality of self-evaluation might be brightly polished. This research firstly adopted methods of document analysis to analyze the connotation of the plan practice records; then, through referring to the four criteria namely utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy developed by JCSEE of the USA, the tool of this research had been designed and questionnaires samply circulated and answered; and, after the problems found through questionnaire analysis, deans of student affairs as well as main affair undertakers had been interviewed to traverse the practical perplexities and possible bettering. This research result reveals that four levels of meta-evaluation over self-evaluation on student affairs are involved in proper sequence: propriety, utility, accuracy, and feasibility; in spite that most of the research objects were those initially engaging in evaluation, the merits fell on the facts they all could precisely interprete the purposes and realm of the evaluation, there was much logics in the practical procedures highly supported by deans of student aggairs, and staff of student affairs could access the organizational learning model to coordinately make and practice the plans; other room remaining for improvement covers those such as self-criticism on evaluation results and on insufficient exercise, student affairs staff having but a hazy understanding about evaluation connotation, in addition to their attaching low importance to precise evaluation criteria. Through the above-men-tioned research results, suggestions are offered as below: 1.On University Student Affairs Units (1)To develop service-oriented data systems, and decrease evaluation hindrance of humanity factors (2)To implement evaluations on student affairs, and reorganize effective conditions for self-evaluation (3)To formulate rules and regulations of self-evaluation, and to conduct self- evaluation on administration, projects, and service of student affairs (4)To take utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy into account of evaluation and properly use evaluation reports for improvements 2.On Educational Executive Authorities (1)To arrange district administrative education training, and cultivate professionals with expertise of evaluation on student affairs (2)To lay down criteria for professionals on student affairs, and to file expert lists, and question data 3.On Future Researches (1)To continuously explore the hindrance factors in self-evaluation for units of student affairs to refrain from (2)To study systems and methods of self-evaluation on student affairs in advanced countries, and develop scaling charts suitable for domestic student affairs evaluations (3)To focus on a single school and penetrate into its self-evaluation to see if it helps improve student affairs and develop its unique features (4)To probe into how the full-time and part-time systems of student affairs leaders affect the organizational efficiency