美国研究型大学教师评价的价值取向、支持系统与实施路径

The Value Orientation, Support System and Implementation Path of Teacher Evaluation in American Research Universities

20世纪80年代以来,美国研究型大学坚持分类考评与自主评价相结合的价值取向,注重营造学术共治的校园文化,建立以学术精神为核心的行业规约,争取各级教师组织的援助,构建覆盖全国的教师评价系统,为实施人本化教师评价提供有力的支持,逐步探索出一套有效促进教师专业发展的人本化教师评价实施策略。在具体实践中,美国研究型大学注重以发展为主、以奖惩为辅的评价导向,制定兼顾院校发展目标和学科特征的差异化评价标准,实施多元主体参与共治的评价方式,在互动的评价过程中赋予教师话语权,将评价结果与针对性帮扶相结合,走出了一条分类考评与自主评价相结合的教师评价实践路径。这种注重教师主体价值与尊严的人本化教师评价,推动了美国研究型大学教师专业发展,也给我国大学教师评价改革带来了以下启示:要反对对教师工作量进行笼统的界定,坚持分类考评,真正做到“术业有专攻,价值有体现”;要发挥教师共同体的纽带作用,积极营造教师参与学术共治的氛围;要赋予教师“话语权”,增强教师的自主评价意识和评价的客观性与全面性;要坚持“学术专业主义”精神,树立学术标杆,在更高的站位上为教师专业发展指引方向。

Since the 1980 s, research universities in the US have gradually developed a humanistic approach to teacher evaluation that combines categorical assessment with autonomous participation, and has trained a large number of outstanding teachers. The management culture of academic co-governance, the professional regulations with the spirit of academic professionalism as the core, the assistance and support of teachers’ organizations at all levels, and the teacher evaluation system based on this have provided conditions for American research universities to realize humanistic teacher evaluation. In practice, these universities focus on the evaluation criteria, evaluation methods, evaluation process optimization, evaluation results and targeted help, forming a set of effective promotion of professional development of teachers humanistic evaluation methods. That is, to formulate differentiated evaluation standards that have the dual orientation of college goals and discipline characteristics;implement a flat evaluation method of multi-group participation and co-governance;to give teachers the right to speak in the interactive evaluation process;and to introduce evaluation results that are mainly based on development and supplemented by rewards and punishments. The evaluation method that respects the value and dignity of teachers is a humanistic evaluation method with classification and autonomy as the core, and it is this evaluation method that promotes the professional development of teachers in American research universities. The humanistic teacher evaluation method of American research universities provides the following enlightenment for the reform of teacher evaluation in China’s universities. First, it is necessary to oppose the general and shallow definition of teachers’ workload, and truly achieve “specialized in the art” and reflect the value. Second, we need to give play to the role of the teachers’ community and create an atmosphere in which teachers actively participate in academic co-governance. Third, we should give teachers the “right to speak” to participate in evaluation, and to enhance the objectivity and comprehensiveness of teacher evaluation. Fourth, we should set up academic benchmarks and guide the direction for teacher development in a higher position.