非正規教育乃正規教育體制外，提供社會大眾一套有組織、系統化設計的學習活動，以讓特定的學習對象，特別是上班族群、退休人士、老人與婦女等依其需求或興趣繼續學習。台灣非正規教育課程認證制度於2005年規劃、2006年開辦五年以來，由於政策推行的諸多爭議問題，包括法令周延性、課程認證的定位、學分採認與抵免、非正規與正規教育的接軌等，更彰顯政策系統性分析的迫切需求。本研究除了根據相關的文獻分析、長期政策推行的實務經驗（2006～2011年），主要運用多重研究方法，包括焦點團體訪談法、系統分析法、世界咖啡館的群體深度匯談法等。本研究針對過去五年19次非正規教育課程認證的結果做系統性分析，並根據19次的認證結果，深入剖析課程認證與學程認證專業化及優質化發展的必要性。本研究的結論包含三個層面：第一，從「終身學習法」至「非正規學習成就認證辦法」的政策制定與協商過程，「學習成就認證」已被窄化為「課程認證」，並限定為大學學士層級之學分課程認證；第二，「非正規教育學習成就認證辦法」並未以推動專業證照認證及成人終身學習能力的專業發展為訴求，課程通過認證與否，對於成人而言，仍缺乏學習誘因；第三，非正規教育不應被視為正規教育的延伸或擴充，在推動非正規教育的專業化發展時，應更強調機構的自主辦學以及課程和教學特色的建立。更重要的是，非正規教育的政策發展、法規制定與辦法執行應有整體性的發展，並根基於前瞻性思考、全觀性理念和可行性的執行。本研究的建議包括非正規教育相關法令之修正、學習成就認證制度之再定位、學習成就認證制度的配套規劃，終身學習與非正規教育的專業化發展。為了發展終身學習更有力的學習機制與學習成就認證，我們需要全觀性、系統化的政策設計與持續修正，方能引領終身教育走向專業化及優質化的發展。

Nonformal education, which aims at providing the public with well-organized and systematic learning activities, is often designed to meet the needs of divergent learners. The curriculum accreditation policy of Taiwan's nonformal education was initiated in 2005 and launched in 2006. Due to the many controversial issues entangled in the policy implementation process, such as comprehensiveness of regulations, focus of curriculum accreditation, credits granting and transfer, and integral bridging between formal and nonformal education, there emerges great demand for systemic policy analysis. The authors undertake a multiple approach to research design, including focus group interview, on-site visit, systemic analysis and collective dialogue of the world café as well as literature review and long-term policy implementation experiences. They first review the policy development and implementation of the curriculum accreditation and then trace the polarization of original ideals for learning achievement accreditation. Research findings are threefold: Firstly, "learning achievement accreditation", being formally framed in "Life-long Learning Law", has been misinterpreted as "curriculum accreditation" in the policy design and negotiation process. Meanwhile, the creditcourses granting and overemphasis on bridging formal and nonformal education systems have delineated from the original spirit of learning achievement accreditation claimed by many local and international scholars. Secondly, since "Nonformal Learning Achievement Accreditation Regulations" were not intended to design "professional certificate accreditation" or professionalize adults' life-long learning abilities, the policy itself becomes less appealing to many adults. Thirdly, nonformal education should not be regarded as extension or expansion of formal education. To professionalize the nonformal education, institution-based and curriculum or instruction-featured development should receive more emphasis. Most importantly, integration of policy development, law design and regulations implementation should be systemically developed, all of which should be grounded on pioneering thoughts, systemic perspectives and feasible implementation.