本研究旨在建構適合臺灣的高等教育資歷架構指標構面，研究先以文獻歸納方式，初擬臺灣高等教育資歷架構構面指標，再以12位專家為對象，利用模糊德菲法建構指標，再以模糊層級分析法求得各構面指標權重。資料分析結論如下： 一、博士學位構面指標 (一)博士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「技能」為最低 (二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備該領域知識批判及理解能 力」為最高，而以「理解研究方法之最適選擇」為最低 (三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「對於該領域知識有關文獻或方法能進行深入的評論」為最高，而以「批判性評估與運用數字、圖像及數據」為最低 (四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在專業領域或學術活動中具備高度自主性及反省能力」為最高，而以「透過研究提出有水準的論文，以創新或詮釋知識」為最低 (五)博士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在專業領域或學術活動中具備高度自主性及反省能力」為最高，而以「批判性評估與運用數字、圖像及數據」為最低 二、碩士學位構面指標 (一)碩士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「知識」為最低 (二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備高度的專業領域知識」為最高，而以「理解研究方法之最適選擇」為最低 (三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「整合研究結果並將其運用至實務中」為最高，而以「在專業領域中具備專業解決問題技能」為最低 (四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在複雜任務設定及工作成果上，展現領導力」為最高，而以「研究能獲認可」為最低 (五)碩士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在複雜任務設定及工作成果上，展現領導力」為最高，而以「在專業領域中具備專業解決問題技能」為最低 三、學士學位構面指標 (一)學士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「知識」為最低 (二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備主修學科的基礎知識」為最高，而以「理解知識的暫時性及有限性」為最低 (三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「具備終身學習能力，以便不斷更新知識」為最高，而以「在有限資訊下能做出合理決定」為最低 (四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在專業團體中展現合作力」為最高，而以「能在他人引導下工作並具備反省能力」為最低 (五) 學士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在專業團體中展現合作力」為最高，而以「在有限資訊下能做出合理決定」為最低 四、高等教育著重「能力」構面 五、博士著重「知識」構面 六、研究所強調「自主性」與「領導力」，大學部強調「合作力」 本研究藉由結論發現，針對實務應用及未來研究提出如下之建議： 一、實務應用方面 (一)對於教育行政機關建議 1.建立高等教育學術資歷架構 2.評鑑指標強調學生能力構面 3.高教培育政策注重倫理道德 (二)對於高等教育機構建議 1.畢業條件參酌高等教育指標 2.課程規劃強調能力構面培育 3.博士培育首重自主反省能力 4.碩士培育強調複雜工作領導 5.學士培育主張團體合作能力 6.高教培育著重專業倫理道德 二、未來研究方面 (一)擴大研究對象 (二)加入質性方法 (三)增加研究變項 / The purpose of the study was to construct the indicators for the Taiwan Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. Research methods include literature analysis, fuzzy Delphi technique and fuzzy AHP. In the literature analysis, this study discussed the theory of Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, studied Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. of each country and explored the initial construction of indicators for the Taiwan Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. In the empirical research, fuzzy Delphi questionnaire and fuzzy AHP questionnaires were used to investigate educational administration representatives, scholars and experts. The conclusions of this study are： 1.Doctor degree： (1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the doctor degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the doctor degree is “skill ”. (2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the doctor degree is “have the Critical and comprehensive ability in the professional domain”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the doctor degree is “understand the most appropriate choice of the research methods ”. (3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the doctor degree is “comment deeply on the literature and methods ”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the doctor degree is “estimate critically and utilize the number, figure and data ”. (4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the doctor degree is “have autonomy and reflective ability in the professional domain ”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the doctor degree is “publish the essay with decent level by research to innovate and interpret knowledge ”. (5)The most importance indicators in the doctor degree is “have autonomy and reflective ability in the professional domain”. The least importance indicators in the doctor degree is “estimate critically and utilize the number, figure and data”. 2.Master degree： (1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the master degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the master degree is “knowledge ”. (2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the master degree is “have the high level knowledge in the professional domain”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the master degree is “understand the most appropriate choice of the research methods ”. (3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the master degree is “integrate the research conclusions and apply the research conclusions”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the master degree is “have the problem solve skill in the professional domain”. (4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the master degree is “have the leadership in the complicate task”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the master degree is “research can be recognized ”. (5)The most importance indicators in the master degree is “have the leadership in the complicate task”. The least importance indicators in the master degree is “have the problem solve skill in the professional domain”. 3.Bachelor degree： (1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the bachelor degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the bachelor degree is “knowledge ”. (2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the bachelor degree is “have the basic knowledge of the major subject”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the bachelor degree is “understand the temporality and limitation of knowledge”. (3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the bachelor degree is “have the life learning ability”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the bachelor degree is “make reasonable decision in the limited information”. (4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the bachelor degree is “cooperate in the profession team”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the bachelor degree is “work by the guidance and have the reflective ability”. (5)The most importance indicators in the bachelor degree is “cooperate in the profession team”. The least importance indicators in the bachelor degree is “make reasonable decision in the limited information”. 3.Doctor degree focus on “knowledge ” level than master degree and bachelor degree. 4.Graduate focus on autonomy and leadership. Undergraduate focus on cooperation. In addition, this research intends to offer suggestion respectively on the aspect of practical application and future study.

在臺灣學生人數減少及大學校院產能過剩，導致大學正規教育面臨相當大的衝擊，而產業創新條例提出我國必須訂定產業人才職能基準及核發能力鑑定證明，及東協－中國自由貿易區、東協－澳洲－紐西蘭自由貿易區（協定）強調區內自然人移動，若我國未積極建立與該自由貿易區銜接之國家資歷架構，將無法促成高等教育輸出、資歷對照及人才流動。 故為協助大學校院面對此項影響，有關建立前學習認證(Recognition of Prior Learning, RPL)、我國國家資歷架構(National Qualifications Framework, NQF)及生涯歷程檔案(Career Portfolio)之整合銜接體系，實為我國高等及技職教育發展及人才培育之迫切任務。本文藉由文獻分析探討香港、英國、澳洲及歐盟資歷架構相關之發展背景、政策分析、各級學校與高等及技職教育學制發展特色；透過瞭解香港、英國、澳洲及歐盟高等及技職教育之發展，除建構我國資歷架構(Taiwan Qualifications Framework, TQF)參考模式外，並可作為高等及技職教育發展之配套措施。 本研究將以「深度訪談法」(in-depth interview)為蒐集資料的主要方法；而在資料的分析部份，則採用「紮根理論」(grounded theory)，最後則歸納結論及提出建議。其中包括「建立國家資歷架構方法、程序及注意事項」、「實施資歷架構對國家發展可獲致之助益」、「實施資歷架構可能遭遇之困難」、「實施資歷架構應有之配套措施」、「先前學習認證之內涵定義及實施注意事項」、「實施先前學習認證對於教育及訓練之助益」、「政府實施先前學習認證應有之配套措施」、「實施生涯歷程檔案之關鍵成功因素及注意事項」、「生涯歷程檔案對於大學校院招生具有助益，對就業市場則助益不大」、「生涯歷程檔案有助於個人生涯發展」、「運用資歷架構進行大學校院評鑑仍有其限制」、「大學經營應該具備多元彈性、延後分流及橫向縱向策略聯盟」、「陸生來台招生政策無法解決高等教育招生困境，應朝向將高等教育資源運用至大陸辦學」、「大學應建立多元學生來源之彈性經營方式，並應從教育產業觀點，增進大學經營效益」等14項研究結論。 本研究並依據文獻探討、資料蒐集與研究分析歸納，提出國家歷程檔案參考模式，生涯歷程檔案通用模式，及前學習認證、國家資歷架構及生涯歷程檔案之交互整合模型。並提出中央政府機關、教育學術機關及大學校院推動實施國家資歷架構整合模型之建議。 / With the number of students on the wane in Taiwan and schools unable to fill their quotas, the educational system in universities and colleges on the island is facing a serious crisis. At the same time, the Industrial Innovation Act states that Taiwan needs to establish professional standards and determine verification standards for qualification even as free trade agreements between China and ASEAN and between China and Australia and New Zealand emphasize freer movement of people within those areas. In light of these developments, if Taiwan does not strive to set up a National Qualifications Network it will be impossible to carry out high level education exports, record checks and personnel exchanges as a result. In order to help universities and colleges cope with these factors, we hereby propose the establishment of a system for Recognition of Previous Learning (RPL) and National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and a Career Portfolio to consolidate and connect development of higher education and technical training in Taiwan. This article is based on analysis of written reports and in-depth studies of the backgrounds, policies, types of schools and special characteristics of higher education and technical training institutions in Hong Kong, England and Australia. Understanding the development of higher education and technical training in Hong Kong, England, Australia and the European Union is intended as a reference for setting up a Taiwan Qualifications Framework or TQF and can serve as a complement in the development of higher education and technical training in Taiwan. The principal method used to collect information in this study was the in-depth interview, and grounded theory was used to analyze the data. The final step was to reach conclusions and offer suggestions. There were a total of 14 such articles including “Methods, Procedures and Cautions in Setting Up a National Qualifications Framework”; “Setting Up a Qualifications Network Can Be an Aid to National Development”; “Potential Problems in Setting Up a Qualifications Framework”; “Complementary Measures Needed to Carry Out a Qualifications Framework”; “Inherent Definition of Recognition of Prior Learning and Points to be Noted in Implementing RPL”; “The Benefits of Recognition of Prior Learning in Education and Training”; “Points to Note when a Government Implements Recognition of Prior Learning”; “Keys to Success in Putting together a Career Portfolio Program and Related Concerns”; “Career Portfolios Are Helpful to Universities and Colleges in Attracting Students but Have Limited Use in Seeking Employment”; “Career Portfolios Can Be Useful in Personal Career Development”; “A Qualifications Framework Is of Limited Use in Evaluating Universities and Colleges”; “Universities Need Flexible Resources, Extended Interchanges and Both Lateral and Vertical Strategic Alliances in Their Operations”; “Failure to Devise a Policy for Students from China to Get into Universities and Colleges Is Causing Problems in Higher Education in Taiwan; Higher Education Assets Should Be Used More in China”; and “Universities Should Set Up Flexible Models to Draw Students from a Wider Variety of Sources and Should Pursue Their Operating Benefits from the Standpoint of Being an Educational Business”. This research is also based on a systematic analysis of other written reports and analyses gathered in the process of research and includes a model for a National Qualifications Framework, an applied model for a Career Portfolio, and interactive models for the RPL, NQF and Career Portfolio. Finally, there are suggestions and a comprehensive model for use by Central Government agencies, educational agencies and universities and colleges.