目前台灣因應此波提升品質的需求，已有兩大高教評鑑機構，一為「財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會」（簡稱評鑑中心），一為「社團法人台灣評鑑協會」（簡稱台評會）。目前台灣高等教育的評鑑工作，主要是由評鑑中心所負責。 高教評鑑中心為將台灣高等教育的發展推向國際舞台，積極參與國際性評鑑組織，且已經獲得「亞太品質網絡」（Asia-Pacific Quality Network, APQN）與「高等教育品質保證國際網絡」（International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education，簡稱INQAAHE）審核通過成為會員。前者為一個區域性的品質保證機構，旨在提高亞洲及太平洋區域的高等教育品質；後者則是一個非營利組織，目前經過認證的會員計有198個。 In response to the need to enhance the quality of higher education, there are two accreditation associations: one is the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT); the other is the Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association (TAEA). The Assessment and Evaluation Association (TAEA) is the one currently responsible for evaluating the work of higher education in Taiwan. HEEACT has been actively participating in international evaluation organizations. It has received recognition from – and gained the approval to become a member of – the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) and the Higher Education Quality Assurance International Network (INQAAHE). The former is a regional quality assurance association aimed at improving the quality of higher education in Asia and the Pacific region; the latter is a non-profit organization which has certified 198 members. 近來，評鑑中心推動許多高等教育評鑑計畫，有從整體校務評鑑向下落實到各系所的中程校務發展計畫，更有針對精進教學與創新所作的教學卓越計畫評鑑，亦或是由系所向上追溯至學校教育品質的系所評鑑與校務評鑑，彰顯台灣高等教育評鑑的全面性與完整性。以系所評鑑來看，大學系所評鑑即是參照美國評鑑制度，以「品質保證」的「認可制」為精神，規劃以五年為一個循環周期，重視系所性質差異，而不採固定量化指標，強調系所應根據自己設立的宗旨與目標，作為評鑑標準，採用自主舉證以說明教育宗旨或目標達成情形，以及系所是否建立並落實自我改善機制為評鑑重點，這與美國的評鑑制度相去不遠。 Recently, HEEACT has carried out a range of accreditation strategies, from school-wide evaluations to medium-range school development plans. The accreditation plans also include the evaluation of teaching excellence and innovation as well as the educational quality of each college. By doing so, HEEACT hopes to highlight Taiwan's higher education and the integrity of a comprehensive evaluation. In regard to departmental evaluation, HEEACT adopts its model from the U.S. accreditation system. In order to reach “quality assurance”, the accreditation is based on a five-year cycle. Recognizing the different nature of each department, the system avoids the use of a fixed quantitative standard. Instead, it emphasizes that the evaluation criteria for the various departments should be based on their own aims and objectives, with each department providing independent evidence to illustrate its educational objectives or goals. Another major aspect of the accreditation system determines whether each department has established and implemented mechanisms for evaluating self-improvement. These criteria for evaluation closely adhere to the U.S. system of evaluation.