| 關 鍵 詞： |
考試特殊評價；專業特殊評價；考試評分記明理由；再行評閱；閱覽試卷；參考答案；評閱標準 |
| 中文摘要： |
民國 104 年 2 月 4 日修正公布之典試法，開放應考人得於榜示後閱覽試卷，固然是向應考人權益之保障邁出第一步，然而應考人之劣勢地位仍然未能因此而明顯改善。反觀德國，自從聯邦憲法法院 1991 年兩個重要判決以來，國家考試評分之判斷餘地適用範圍受到限縮、考試評分必須記明理由、應考人於提出有實據之異議後即有權請求原考官審慎思考其評分。凡此種種，足堪我國借鏡。此外，臺北高等行政法院 101 年訴字第 732 號判決將申論式試題區分為一般申論題及簡答題，也為應考人權益保障提供一個良好的切入點。本文認為，我國考試成績評定未來亦應要求記明理由、從寬解釋重行評閱之限制、在行政訴訟程序應將一般申論題之參考答案及評閱標準提供應考人閱覽、簡答題之參考答案則應公布。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
test specific ratings；professional specific ratings；statement of reasons；reconsideration；viewing original answer sheets；reference answer；score criteria |
| 英文摘要： |
According the new amendment of Examination Affairs Act on February 4, 2015, it is allowed to view original answer sheets after qualifier bulletin. It is the first step to protect the rights of examinees. However, the disadvantage of examinees is still not improved significantly. In contrast, since two important judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1991, Germany narrows down the scope of discretion in national exam ratings, their exam ratings must specify the reasons, and a examinee has right to request the original examiner to think carefully about their ratings, if he raises a well-founded objection. All these are good examples for our country. In addition, a judgment of the Taipei High Administrative Court in November 2012 distinguished essay questions and short-answer questions. It also provides a good starting point for examinees rights protection. This article believes that national exam ratings in Taiwan should also specify the reasons in the future, restrictions of reconsideration should be liberal interpreted, viewing reference answers and score criteria of essay questions should be allowed during the suit proceedings, and reference answers of short-answer questions should be announced.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、考試評分之判斷餘地及其界限
一、概述
二、考試評分判斷餘地適用範圍之國內外發展
參、考試評分之記明理由
肆、相關禁制法制之探討
一、司法院釋字第 319 號解釋
二、關於再行評閱之爭議
三、閱覽試卷之爭議
四、提供申論式試題參考答案
五、提供申論式試題評閱標準
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|