:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:私立大學董事會組織運作與職權效能之研究
作者:張國保 引用關係
作者(外文):Kuo-pao Chang
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:教育研究所
指導教授:吳清基
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2003
主題關鍵詞:董事會組織效能運作效能職權效能boards of trusteeorganizational effectivenessoperational effectivenessauthority effectiveness
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(7) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:70
本研究旨在探討私立大學董事會組織運作與職權效能之相關問題,期藉調查研究與分析,強化私立大學董事會組織運作功能,並提供私立大學董事會與教育主管機關做為私校經營管理及決策研擬之參考。
為達此一目的,本研究採用文獻分析、比較研究方法,蒐集國內外私立大學及其董事會相關組織運作與職權效能之資料,據以建構研究架構,做為實證調查研究設計之基礎。
本研究之工具為自行設計之「財團法人私立大學董事會基本資料調查問卷」暨「私立大學董事會運作現況調查問卷」,前者調查蒐集69所私立大學董事會之基本組織、運作與職權現況,回收48份;後者以1200份問卷調查私立大學董事會人員及大學校務人員,共回收800份,依五點量表計分,並以單因子變異數分析、多重比較及迴歸分析等統計方法,以分析不同性別、年齡、職務、年資、學歷、教育背景及服務學校之差異情形。並輔以焦點座談,以彌補量化無法分析之質性研究。
本研究結果之重點及發現:
一、不同背景的人員在私立大學董事會組織效能方面之認知有差異存在。
二、不同背景的人員在私立大學董事會運作效能方面之認知有差異存在。
三、不同背景的人員在私立大學董事會職權效能方面之認知有差異存在。
四、董事會組織效能、運作效能、職權效能之認知與共識,與目前董事會之現況沒有多大差異。
根據研究結論,本研究提出幾點建議:
一、教育主管機關對私校政策應仿照美、日再做鬆綁,以提高私校競爭力。
二、私立大學董事會的組織功能及運作效能宜再強化,並授權董事會更多經營管理的決策職權。
三、因應大環境的轉型,私立大學董事會及校長之評鑑應更加具體落實,以發揮監督成效。
四、私立大學的相關問題仍多,在後續研究方面宜多鼓勵或支持,俾客觀解決國內私立大學教育問題。
The main purpose of this research is to examine the relevant issues about the organizational operation and authority effectiveness on the boards of trustee of private universities. By the use of surveys and analyses, suggestions are proposed to the boards and the authorities of education as guidelines of operation control and policy making in relation to strengthening the function of the boards.
With a view to reaching the above-mentioned goal, literature analyses, methods of comparative studies, search for data on the relevant organizational operation and authority effectiveness of the private institutions and boards of trustee in Taiwan were widely applied to this research as the basis of substantive surveys and the designs of formulating the concepts concerned.
In this research “Questionnaire of Basic Data Concerning Boards of Trustee, Corporate Private Universities” and “ Questionnaire Concerning Current Operation on Boards of Trustee of Private Universities” were employed. The former focuses on the gleanings of basic organizational operation and authority effectiveness owned by these boards among 69 private institutions and the total usable number of the questionnaires returned was 48. The latter, among 1200 questionnaires to the personnel related to college affairs and boards, the total usable number of the questionnaires returned was 800, a return rate of 66.67﹪, emphasizes the use of 5-point measuring table, plus the statistic methods such as ANOVA, multiple comparisons and analysis of regression, analyzing the differences among people with different sexes, ages, occupations, length of service, academic degrees, educational backgrounds and work places. At the last stage, focusing symposiums were held as a complementary method to decrease the weakness of quantitative analysis.
The main findings of this research are as follows:
1.The variations of the personnel’s backgrounds made differences in their perception of the organizational effectiveness of the boards of private universities.
2.The variations of the personnel’s backgrounds made differences in their perception of the operational effectiveness of the boards of private universities.
3.The variations of the personnel’s backgrounds made differences in their perception of the authority effectiveness of the boards of private universities.
4.The subjects’ perception and consensus on the organizational effectiveness, operational effectiveness and authorities effectiveness on the boards of private universities are not very different from the current state of the boards.
According to the above conclusions, the following suggestions are made:
1.The Ministry of Education should deregulate the rules over private schools, like those in USA or Japan, to elevate their competitiveness.
2.The organizational function and operational effectiveness on the boards of private universities should be enhanced. More purview of decision power should be authorized to the board.
3.In responding to the social changes, the evaluation on the boards and presidents of the private universities should be put into practice, in order to produce the supervisory effects.
4.There are still many problems existed among the boards of the private universities. The further studies concerned should be encouraged and supported; so as to cope with the educational problems of private universities.
一、中文
四一○教育改造聯盟(民85)。民間教育改造藍圖-朝向社會正義的結
構性變革。台北:時報文化。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(民85)。第四期諮議報告書。台北:行政
院。
伍振鷟(民85)。中國教育史論叢。台北:師大書苑。
何卓飛、盛海音(民89)。美國著名大學校務發展與運作。行政院所屬各
機關因公出國人員出國考察報告書。未出版。
余玉照(民86)。我國高等教育的回顧與展望。載於中華民國通識教育學
會(主編)。大學理念與校長遴選(頁195-212)。台北市:福元。
吳清山(民87)。學校效能研究。台北:五南。new window
林玉体(民91)。美國高等教育之發展。台北:高等教育。
林紀東、鄭玉波、蔡墩銘、古登美(民91)。新編六法參照法令判解全
書。台北:五南。
林清江(譯)。Perkins, J.A.(1966/民62)。高等教育的演進。台北:新
亞。
林榮泰(民90)。淺談美國大學的辦學特色與經營管理。國外短期研究報
告,90.6.2-90.9.6。未出版。台北縣:明志技術學院。
林錦杏(民83)。我國私立大專院校董事會之研究。國立台灣師範大學教
育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
周志宏(民90)。私人興學自由與私立學校法制。論文發表於輔仁大學財new window
經法律系主辦:「二十一世紀私立學校經營之新方向:我國與日本
私立學校經營法制」學術研討會(頁23-63)。台北縣。
胡茹萍(2001,12月)。私立學校董事會行政監督運作之探討。論文發表
於國立台灣師範大學主辦:「知識經濟與教育發展」國際學術研討
會(頁1-12)。台北市。
紀肇廉(民82)。最新實用叢書式法律大辭典。台南市:永興美術社。
後藤武秀(2001)。東洋大學經營之現狀與問題點。論文發表於輔仁大學
財經法律系主辦:「二十一世紀私立學校經營之新方向:我國與日
本私立學校經營法制」學術研討會(頁7-22),台北縣。
教育部(民82a)。大學發展之策略規劃(高教叢書-政策類6)。台北市:
教育部高等教育司。
教育部(民82b)。大學行政組織系統(高教叢書-政策類7)。台北市:教
育部高等教育司。
教育部(民87)。大學校院組織規程彙編(高教叢書-法規類4)。台北
市:教育部高等教育司。
教育部(民88)。申請籌設私立大學校院參考手冊。台北市:教育部高等
教育司。
教育部(民90)。大學教育政策白皮書。教育部委託楊國賜(主編)。台北
市:教育部。
教育部(民91a)。中華民國教育統計。台北市:教育部統計處。
教育部(民91b)。九十一學年度大學校院一覽表。台北市:教育部高等教
育司。
教育部(民91c)。九十一學年度私立大學校院名單。高教簡訊,138,
14。
教育部(民91d)。九十學年度中華民國大專院校概況統計。台北市:教育
部統計處。
教育部(民91e)。高等教育法規選輯。台北市:教育部高等教育司。
國立編譯館(民22)。第一次中國教育年鑑。南京。
秦素蘭(民86)。美國有效能學校經營的新鐘擺。高雄市:復文。
陳俞妏、陳淑金(民90)。私人興學政策之評估考察報告。行政院及所屬
各機關出國報告。未出版。
陳舜芬(民85)。美國高等教育對我國高等教育的啟示。載於淡江大學教
育研究中心21世紀基金會(主編)。二十一世紀我國高等教育的發展
趨勢:體制功能與學校組織(頁93-126)。台北:師大書苑。
張建邦(民71)。台灣六所大學官僚同僚政治管理模式之研究。台北:驚
聲文物。
張國保(民83)。我國大學學雜費政策之現況與發展趨勢。台灣教育月new window
刊,152,28-31。
張國保(民86)。大學法及其施行細則對學校行政運作的影響。載於教育
部(主編)。第一屆教育行政研究發展獎勵得獎作品選輯(頁523-
531)。台北市:教育部人事處。
張國保(民88)。私立學校行政制度之改進。載於教育部(主編)第二屆教
育行政研究發展獎勵得獎作品選輯(頁296-332)。台北市:教育部人
事處。
張國保(2001)。我國大學評鑑問題與政策方向。論文發表於中國文化大
學主辦:「二十一世紀私立大學發展之展望國際研討會:中日韓三
國之比較」(頁65-70)。台北市。
盛海音、張國保(民85)。美國著名私立大學校務發展與運作。行政院所
屬機關因公出國人員出國考察報告書。未出版。
曾習賢(民90a)。日本私立大學理事會的沿革。私校文教期訊,24,17-
18。
曾習賢(民90b)。論日本私校糾紛之處理與我國有關規定的比較。私校文
教期訊,23,17-18。
曾習賢(2001)。論法制上董事會在私立學校之功能:兼述私校法令之沿
革與監察原則。論文發表於中國文化大學主辦:「二十一世紀私立
大學發展之展望國際研討會:中日韓三國之比較」(頁113-121)。台
北市。
黃政傑(民90)。大學教育改革。台北市:師大書苑。
黃茂德主編(民70)。現代生活法律顧問百科全書。台北市:龍江文化。
彭炳進(民89)。日本教育制度史研究:教育制度改革績效之評價與展
望。台北市:馨園文教基金會。
葉至誠(2002)。高等教育發展的策略與願景。台北市:揚智文化。
萬其超(民86)。大學決策權之分析。載於黃政傑(主編)。大學的決策與
管理(頁23-30)。台北:漢文。
楊思偉(民88)。日本教育。台北市:商鼎文化。
蓋浙生、陳麗珠等(民83)。我國教育經費發展現況與評估之研究。第七
屆全國教育會議參考資料叢書(9)。台北市:國立教育資料館。
劉源俊(1999,10月)。公私立大學角色之分際。論文發表於中央研究院
社會問題研究推動委員會主辦:「大學教育改革研討會」(頁417-
425)。台北市。
劉源俊(民89)。民辦大學在我國高等教育史上的意義。載於劉安之、黃
俊傑(主編)。大學理念與實踐(頁103-114)。台中市:逢甲大學。
蔡保田(民72)。中外私立教育制度比較研究。台北市:中央文物。
蔡進雄(民89)。國民中學校長轉型領導、互易領導、學校文化與學校效
能關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士學位論文,未出
版,台北市。
鄭友超、黃祈銘(民91)。我國高職(中)工業類科學校教師教育專業承諾
與學校效能關係之研究。教育研究資訊,9(2),15-43。
鄭彩鳳(民87)。學校行政-理論與實務。高雄市:麗文。
謝文全(民79)。教育行政-理論與實務。台北市:文景。
謝文全(民86)。學校行政。台北市:五南。
謝金青(民86)。國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系之建構。國立政new window
治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
謝琇玲(民90)。國民中學校長領導型式、教師效能信念與學校效能之研
究。載於輔仁大學(主編)。二十一世紀教育領導與發展學術研討會
論文集(頁B1-1~B1-13)。台北縣:輔仁大學。
二、外文
 (一)日文
文部省(2000,平成12年)。文部省現況。東京都:文部省。
文部科學省(2002,平成14年)。文部統計要覽。東京都:文部科學省。
財團法人日本私立大學連盟(1988,平成元年)。日本私立大學連盟規程集
(一)。東京都。
學校法人早稻田大學(2000,平成12年)。學校法人早稻田大學捐贈行為。
東京都。
學校法人東洋大學(2000,平成12年)。學校法人東洋大學捐贈行為。東京
都。
 (二)英文
Association of Governing Boards of University and Colleges
[AGB].(1982).Guidelines for bylaw development for
theological school boards of trustees. Washington, D.C.:
Lilly Endowment.
Association of Governing Boards of University and Colleges
[AGB].(2000). The board of trustees. Retrieved August 20,
2000, from http://www.agb.org/
Bone, A. & Bourner,T. (1998). Developing university
management. Higher Education Quarterly, 52(3), 283-299.
Chait, R.P., Holland, T.P. & Taylor, B.E. (1991). The
effective board of trustees. New York: Macmillan.
Chait, R.P., Holland, T.P. & Taylor, B.E. (1996). Improving
the performance of governing boards. Arizona: American
Council on Education and the Oryx.
Cheng, Y.C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based
management:A mechanism for development. London:Falmer.
David, J.L. (1996). Site-based management: Making it work/the
who,what and why of site-based management, Educational
Leadership, 53(5), 1-15.
David, P.D.M. (1994). School-site councils. Retrieved
September 5, 2000, from http://darwing.uoregon.
edu:80/ericcem/digest89.html/
Dhanarajan, G. (1997). Education: Equalising opportunities.
Education Today ,47,3-6.
Dill, D.D. (1997). Markets and higher education: An
introduction. Higher Education Policy,10(3/4), 163-166.
Epstein, L.D. (1974). Governing the university. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, J.L. (1991). The board and the president. New York:
American Council on Education and Macmillan.
Fuller, J.W. (1993). The demography of independent higher
ducation. In R.T.Ingram (Ed.), Governing independent
colleges and university: A handbook for trustees, chief
executives and other campus leaders (pp.23-37). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gale, R.L. (1993). Selecting, orienting, and developing
trustees. In R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent
colleges and university: A handbook for trustees, chief
executives and other campus leaders (pp.287-301). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goens, G.A. & Clover, S.L.R. (1991). Mastering school reform.
Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education?
Philadelphia: Society for research into higher education &
Open University.
Hanson, H.K. (1993). The economics of independent higher
education. In R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent
colleges and university: A handbook for trustees, chief
executives and other campus leaders (pp.38-60). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school
resources on student performance: An update. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis,Summer,19(2),141-164.
Howe, F. (1991). The board member’s guide to fund raising. A
publication of the National Center for Nonprofit Boards.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R.T. (1993a). Exercising stewardship in times of
transition. In R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent
colleges and university: A handbook for trustees, chief
executives and other campus leaders (pp.3-22). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R.T. (1993b). Organizing and staffing the board. In.
R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent colleges and
university: A handbook for trustees, chief executives and
other campus leaders (pp.302-320). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R.T. (1993c). Making board and committee meeting work.
In R.T. Ingram(Ed.). Governing independent colleges and
university: A handbook for trustees, chief executives and
other campus leaders (pp.321-332). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R.T. (1993d). Understanding chief executive and board
chair responsibilities. In R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing
independent colleges and university: A handbook for
trustees, chief executives and other campus leaders
(pp.333-343). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R.T., Weary,W.A. and Others. (2000). Presidential and
board assessment in higher education: Purposes,policies
and strategies. Washington, D.C.:Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges[AGB].
Iwanaga, J. (1998). Presidents and trustees in partnership.
(ERIC Digest. No.ED416935)
Johnson, Jr.R.H. & Hartman, W. (1964). The school board and
public relation. New York: Exposition.
Jouandeau, A. (1996). Why higher education needs a quality
system? Higher Education Management, November, 8(3), 69-
77.
Judith, C. (1990). School-based decision-making and
management, London: Falmer.
Kerr, C. & Gade, M.L. (1989). The guardians: Boards of
trustees of American colleges and universities.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges[AGB].
Kwong, J. (1997). Focus on private schooling in China: The
reemergence of private schools in socialist china.
Comparative Education Review, 41(3), 244-259.
Kurse, S.D. & Louis, K.S. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle
schools: Dilemmas for a schoolwide community. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 261-289.
Lascell, M.D. & Levin, H.S. (1993). Coping with a litigious
environment. In R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent
colleges and university: A handbook for trustees, chief
executives and other campus leaders (pp.61-80). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levin, H.M. (1997). Accelerated education for equity,
efficiency and economic productivity(pp.1-11). Keynote
address to the 19th Congress of the Pan-Pacific
Association of Private School Education.
Levey, D.C. (1986). Private education: Studies in choice and
public policy. New York:Oxford University.
Lin, Wen-tong. (1997). Reviewing the policies of higher
education reform. Unpublished.
Liontos, L.B. (1994). Shared decision-making.
Retrieved November 15, 2000, from
http:/darkwing.uoregon.edu:80/~ericcem/digest87.html/
Macfarlane, A. (1995). Future patterns of teaching and
learning. In T. Schuller (Ed.). The changing university?
(pp.52-65). Bristol: USA, The society for research into
higher education and Open University.
Meyerson, J.W. & Johnson, S.L. (1993). Planning for strategic
decision making. In R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing
independent colleges and university: A handbook for
trustees, chief executives and other campus leaders (pp.81-
93). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murgatroyd, S. & Morgan, C. (1994). Total quality management
and the school. Philadelphia: Open University.
Nason, J.W. (1993). Responsibility of the governing board. In
R.T. Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent colleges and
university: A handbook for trustees, chief executives and
other campus leaders (pp.97-113). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Perry, P. (1991). Quality in higher education. In T. Schuller
(Ed.). The future of higher education (pp.91-99). Bristol:
USA, The society for research into higher education and
Open University.
Sallis, E. (1994). Total quality management in education.
Philadelphia: Open University.
Slee, R., Weiner, G. & Tomlinson, S. (1998). School
effectiveness for whom?:Challenges to the school
effectiveness and school improvement movements. London:
Falmer.
Smoley, Jr. E.R. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies
for improving board performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Taylor, B.E. (1993). Assessing board performance. In R.T.
Ingram (Ed.). Governing independent colleges and
university: A handbook for trustees, chief executives and
other campus leaders (pp.344-359). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Trachtenberg, S.J. (1994). The future of higher education. In
S.J. Trachtenberg (Ed.). Speaking his mind (pp.111-118).
Arizona: American Council on Education and the Oryx.
Williams, G., Liu, S.S. & Shi, Q. (1997). Marketization of
education in the People’s Republic of China. Higher
Education Policy, 10 (2), 151-157.
Zwingle, J.L. (1985). Effective trusteeship: Guidelines for
board members. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing
Boards of University and Colleges[AGB].
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE