本研究旨在建構我國大學教師評鑑指標，以供大學做為教師續聘和升等之參考。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學教師之三大角色構面和47項教師評鑑指標，並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確定。接著以多元度量法和集群分析的方式整合大學教師對指標的分類，以建構評鑑構面，並利用模糊德菲術整合大學教師對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項指標權重，完成我國大學教師評鑑指標系統。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下： 一、本研究確立我國大學教師評鑑指標，為三大構面共34項指標。指標三大構面依權重高低依序為：研究構面（41%）、教學構面（35%）、服務構面（24%）。 二、大學教師評鑑之服務構面底下分為三個次構面，分別為專業性服務、一般性服務、學生指導。 三、研究構面之下權重最重的指標依次為：1-1.在原創性研究上獲得之榮譽或獎勵（佔7.78%）；1-2.在有外審制度之期刊發表論文（佔4.64%）；1-3.學術影響力（佔4.53％）。 四、教學構面下，2-1.教學內容的品質與適切性（佔3.54%）；2-2.優良教師獲獎（佔3.41%）；2-3.教學方法（佔3.14%）。 五、服務構面權重最重的指標為學生指導此一次構面下的指標3-10.指導碩士學位和博士學位學生論文（佔2.25%）權重最重，其次為專業性服務此一次構面下的指標3-1擔任專業期刊的主編或審查委員（佔2.14%）。 　　本研究依研究結果提出以下建議： 　　一、對高等教育主管機關之建議。 　　二、對大學教師之建議。 三、對未來研究之建議。 / The purpose of this study is to construct the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators which aim for faculty tenure and promotion. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 47 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators based on which the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the sample of higher education experts. Symmetric triangular fuzzy number then was used to analyze experts’ opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect faculty’s opinion about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of faculty evaluation. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number’s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system was constructed. The main conclusions are as follows: 1.Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system consists of 3 dimensions and 34 indicators in total. The 3 dimensions are: research (accounts for 41%), teaching (35%), and service (24%). 2.The dimension of service consists of 3 sub-dimensions, which are professional service, general service, and student counsel. 3.In the dimension of research, the indicator of honor on original research accounts for the most part (7.78%), and then the indicator of writing papers in reviewed journals accounts for 4.64%. 4.In the dimension of teaching, the indicator of the quality of teaching content accounts the most (3.54%), and the indicator of teaching awards accounts for 3.41%. 5.In the dimension of service, the indicator of advising masters’ and doctors’ theses accounts the most (2.25), and the indicator of serving as an editor or reviewer of professional journals accounts for 2.14%. According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed： 　　1. suggestions for higher education administrators 　　2. suggestions for faculty members 　　3. suggestions for further study.