:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:大學品質指標模糊權重建構與檢定:高中職校長觀點之分析
書刊名:教育與心理研究
作者:林松柏 引用關係張鈿富 引用關係
作者(外文):Lin, Song-boChang, Dian-fu
出版日期:2008
卷期:31:3
頁次:頁1-24
主題關鍵詞:大學評鑑品質指標齊一性檢定模糊權重Fuzzy weightsHomogeneity testQuality indicatorsUniversity evaluation
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(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:209
  • 點閱點閱:89
指標權重建構可藉由不同方法計算,為了驗證可以進行模糊反應意見及方便的計算指標權重,本文嘗試以模糊理論來進行指標模糊權重的建構,並運用無母數統計方法進行齊一性檢定。一般文獻探討發現,大學評鑑的品質指標項目以「學校形象」、「教師素質」、「學生表現」、「研究成果」與「教學品質」等五項為主。本研究以此評鑑品質的指標發展網路問卷調查工具,針對任職於高中職之校長進行意見調查,並進行大學品質指標的模糊權重建構與檢定。針對全國高中職校長的調查,研究結果發現,各項指標與指標之間的相對權重差距並不明顯。然而,在指標權重齊一性檢定方面,發現不同背景變項的校長對上述指標的相對權重看法有顯著差異。在大學品質指標相對權重的排序上,亦出現不一致的情形。公立學校之校長較重視學校形象,私立學校校長較看重學生表現。高職校長較重視教學品質,高中校長較重視學生表現。北部和南部校長較重視教師素質,中部校長以學生表現為主。根據研究發現,本文提出如何運用模糊理論進行大學品質指標建構,以及模糊權重齊一性檢定的方法,針對大學教育的品質,現任高中職校長對品質指標的看法有其特殊的意義與參考價值。
Quality indicators which use in university evaluation can be constructed through different statistical models. In order to more easy to compute and to collect the fuzzy respondent opinions, the authors applied the fuzzy theory and nonparametric statistical analytic techniques to construct the relative weights of quality indicators and to test the homogeneity of their rankings. According to the literature review, the authors found that the university quality indicators included: university image, staffs quality, student performance, research achievement, and teaching quality. The purposes of this paper are to construct and test the fuzzy relative weights of quality indicators of university evaluation according to the senior high school principals’ opinions in Taiwan. The research findings indicated that the different background principals have different opinions on the quality indicators in terms of fuzzy weights. It found that the rankings of the fuzzy weights of quality indicators for university evaluation were not consistent. Public high school principals paid more attention to the indicator of university image. Private high school principals more concerned the indicator of student performance. Senior vocational high school principals more concerned the indicator of teaching quality. Senior high school principals paid more attention on the indicator of student performance. Principals in the northern and southern regions more cared about the indicator of staff quality. Principals in the central regions of Taiwan more concerned the indicator of student performance. However, the relative fuzzy weights of different indicators were not shown on significant difference. In this paper the authors provided the ways how to apply the fuzzy theory to construct the quality indicators of university evaluation and to test the homogeneity of fuzzy relative weights of the quality indicators. The opinions of the quality indicators from the senior high school principals have special meanings and valuable for the university evaluation.
期刊論文
1.陳啟光、黃聖凱(20000700)。大學評鑑指標選取模式之建構--考慮外部競爭環境與模糊群體決策之情況。管理與系統,7(3),343-364。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.黃政傑(200312)。大學評鑑的爭論話題。師友月刊,438,1-3。  延伸查詢new window
3.王如哲(20061100)。大學學術排名的國際現狀和未來展望。教育政策論壇,9(4),1-20。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Federkeil, G.(2002)。Some aspects of ranking methodology: The CHE-ranking of German universities。Higher Education in Europe,27(4),389-397。  new window
5.湯堯(20071100)。臺灣高等教育評鑑制度的實務探究。教育政策論壇,10(4),1-17。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.黃慕萱(20070500)。擇優公布國內前20%大學名單。評鑑雙月刊,7,9-22。  延伸查詢new window
7.郭昭佑(20011100)。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。國教學報,13,251-278。  延伸查詢new window
8.葉連祺(20041200)。AHP和CPC之比較--以教育資料為例。教育與心理研究,27(4),751-774。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Bozbura, F. T.、Beskese, A.、Kahraman, C.(2007)。Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP。Expert Systems with Application,32(4),1100-1112。  new window
10.陳曼玲(2006)。系所評鑑五年計畫正式啟動:重視個別差異與自我改進機制。評鑑雙月刊,1,11-14。  延伸查詢new window
11.張慧銖(2007)。積極建立人文學門教師研究力評鑑指標。評鑑雙月刊,5,42-43。  延伸查詢new window
12.陳恆光(2007)。人文領域學術評鑑首次規劃會議:凝聚初步共識。評鑑雙月刊,7,25-27。  延伸查詢new window
13.Bozbura, F. T.、Beskese, A.(2007)。Prioritization of Organizational Capital Measurement Indicators Using fuzzy AHP。International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,44(2),124-147。  new window
14.Labib, A. W.、Williams, G. B.、O'Connor, R. F.(1998)。An Intelligent Maintenance Model (system): An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a Fuzzy Logic Rule-based Controller。The Journal of the Operational Research Society,49(7),745-757。  new window
15.Smith, M. S.(1988)。Educational Indicators。Phi Delta Kappan,69(7),487-491。  new window
會議論文
1.吳政達(2008)。臺灣地區大學排名的意義與問題分析。0。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(2006)。Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2006。Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development。  new window
2.吳柏林(2005)。模糊統計導論:方法與應用。臺北市:五南出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.Kells, H. R.(1995)。Self-study processes: A guide to self- evaluation in higher education。Phoenix, AZ:American Council on Education:The Oryx Press。  new window
4.楊國賜(2001)。大學教育政策白皮書。臺北:教育部。  延伸查詢new window
5.張鈿富(2000)。學校行政決定原理與實務。台北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
6.陳玉琨(2004)。教育評鑑學。臺北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
7.蘇錦麗(19970000)。高等教育評鑑:理論與實際。臺北市:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.張鈿富(1999)。教育政策與行政--指標發展與應用。台北:師苑。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.吳政達(2002)。教育政策分析:概念、方法與應用。臺北:高等教育。  延伸查詢new window
10.吳柏林(1999)。現代統計學。臺北市:五南書局。  延伸查詢new window
11.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development。Education Trends in Perspective: Analysis of the World Education Indicators。Education Trends in Perspective: Analysis of the World Education Indicators。Paris, France。  new window
12.Aspinwall, K.、Simkins, T.、Wilkinson, J. F.、McAuley, M. J.(1992)。Managing Evaluation in Education: A Developmental Approach。Routledge。  new window
13.胡悅倫、陳漢強(1998)。1997學年度大學綜合評鑑之後設評鑑研究。海峽兩岸大學評鑑之研究。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.行政院教育部統計處(2006)。大專院校學校數及學生數,0。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.秦夢群(1998)。臺灣大學評鑑制度的分析與檢討。海峽兩岸大學教育評鑑之研究。臺北:師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳伯璋(2005)。學術資本主義下臺灣教育學門學術評鑑制度的省思。全球化與知識生產:反思臺灣學術評鑑。臺北市:唐山。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳漢強(1997)。大學評鑑之哲學省思。大學評鑑。臺北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE