:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:我國高級職業學校學校效能指標與其權重之建構研究
作者:張錫輝
作者(外文):Hsi-Hui Chang
校院名稱:彰化師範大學
系所名稱:工業教育學系
指導教授:戴文雄
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2003
主題關鍵詞:學校效能效能指標指標權重學校效能指標認知指標school effectivenesseffectiveness indicatoreffectiveness indicatior weightschool effectiveness indicator cognitionindicator
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(11) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:5
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:54
本研究旨在探討我國高級職業學校學校效能指標及其權重之建構,同時探討高職教師對學校效能指標認知之狀況。研究過程首先以德懷術建構高職學校效能指標,再以階層程序分析法,評定所建構的指標權重,最後探討高職教職員對學校效能指標之認知狀況。研究樣本包括德懷術專家17人,指標權重建構76人,學校效能指標認知問卷調查885人。本研究之結論如下:
一、學校效能指標與其權重階層結構中,分為四個層級,包括:教育輸入,權重23.0%;教育歷程,權重44.7%與教育產出,權重32.3%等三個構面。一級指標有:學校發展計劃,權重8.0%;學校資源應用,權重7.5%;校長教師能力素養,權重17.8%;學校行政管理,權重7.2%;教師教學品質,權重16.1%;學校組織氣氛,權重10.7%;學生學習表現,權重17.4%;學校社區關係,權重5.4%;教職員工作滿足,權重9.9%等共九項。一級指標項下總共25項二級指標,75項三級指標。
二、高職學校教職員對學校效能指標之認知一致性高,各背景變項無顯著差異,表示高職學校教職員對本研究所建構的學校效能指標均表非常高的認同。
Abstract
The purpose of this research was discussing the constructions of school effectiveness indicators and weight of vocational senior high schools in our country, and the school effectiveness indicator cognition of vocational senior high school teachers would also be studied as the reference for the school evaluation and operational management of vocational senior high schools. The whole procedure could be divided into three stages. First, to build the available indicators of vocational senior high schools by the Delphi Method; second, to use AHP Method to assess the weight of indicators ; at last to discuss the school effectiveness indicator cognition. The study samples included 17 people of the professional group of Delphi, 76 people of the indicator weight construction, and 885 people of the questionnaire of school effectiveness indicator cognition investigation of vocational senior high schools., and here came the conclusion up:
A. There were 4 levels of school effectiveness indicators and weight-level construction of this research. The first-level indicator included three aspects, which were " educational input" weight 23.0%; “educational process" weight 44.7%; and "educational output" weight 32.3%. The second-level indicator included nine aspects, which were school development program, weight 8.0%, school resource application weight 7.5%; quality of faculty weight 17.8%; school administrative management, weight 7.2%; instructional quality, weight 16.1%; school organizational climate, weight 10.7%; student''''s learning performance, weight 17.4%; reputation of school and community, weight 5.4%; and satisfaction of faculty, weight 9.9%. There were also 2 or 3 third-level indicators of the second-level one, and there were totally 25 third-level indicators, which could be re-divided into 75 indicatory items.
B. The faculties of vocational senior high schools had the same cognitive state greatly of school effectiveness indicators and there was no significant difference of each background variance that meant all the faculties of vocational senior high schools had an agreement of the school effectiveness indicators, which were made by this study.
參考文獻
一、中文部分
王如哲(1998)。教育行政學。台北:五南。
王妙雲(譯)(2000)。Bounds & Lamb著。現代企業管理。台北:高立。
王銳添(1986)。管理學英漢詞匯。台北:台灣商務。
王怡詠(2002)。高級工業職業學校因應知識經濟策略與學校效能相關之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系在職進修專班碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
江文雄等(1995)。工業類職業學校「學校行政」評鑑指標之研究。國立台灣師範大學技術職業教育研究所,國科會專題研究報告,NSC84-2511-S-003- TG,未出版,台北。
李皓光(1995)。國民小學學校效能評量指標之研究。國立台中師範學院初等教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台中。
李吉仁、陳振祥(1999)。企業概論。台北:華泰。
李再長(譯)(1999)。Richard L. Daft著。組織理論與管理。台北:華泰。
吳文龍(1990)。環境影響評估權重方法之研究發展。淡江大學水力資源及環境工程研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
吳清山(1989)。國民小學管理模式與學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
吳清山(2000)。學校行政。台北:心理。
吳清山(2002a)。學校效能研究。台北:五南。new window
吳清山(2002b)。學校行政研究的重要課題與未來取向。教育研究月刊,100,23~31。new window
吳天方、王瑞(2000):全面品質管理與學校效能之提升。中等教育,51(5),33~40。new window
吳培源(1994)。台灣省高級中學校長領導型態、學校氣氛與學校效能關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。。new window
卓秀冬(1995):高級中等學校組織文化與學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
林世華(2002)。國中學生基本學力測驗與教育品質的共生關係。教育研究月刊,96,11。
林適湖(1999)。我國暴力犯罪嚴重性指標與權重體系之建構。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
林振春(1992)。德惠法。民意月刊,169,82-101。
林蕙質(2002)。國民中學校長性別角色、轉換型領導與學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文,未出版,台北。
林俊雄(2002)。我國工職實施新課程後教師同仁工作態度與學校效能關係之研究。彰化師範大學工業教育學系在職進修專班碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
邱錦昌(2003)。教育視導與學校效能。台北:高等教育。new window
洪子豪、李仁芳(1992)。企業概論。台北:華泰。
郭昭佑(2000)。學校本位評鑑。台北:五南。new window
湯堯(2001)。英國教育指標之現況與發展。戴於簡茂發(主編),當代教育指標 - 國際比較觀點。台北:學富。
湯堯(2001)。台灣地區之技職教育指標建構研究。教育政策論壇,1(4),53-80。new window
湯堯(2001)。美國技職教育表現績效體系之簡介。論文發表於台灣師範大學工業教育學系,教育部主辦之「第十六屆全國技職教育研討會」,台北。
湯堯(1999)。淺談國內技職教育目標與發展方向。技術及職業教育雙月刊,47,05-09.。
孫仲山、龔武雄(1999)。職業教育論:學校系統基層技術人才培育的評析與展望。高雄:復文。
教育部(1998)。高級職業學校自我評鑑手冊。台北:教育部。
秦夢群(2001)。教育行政-實務部分。台北:五南。
康自立等(1994)。職業訓練績效評估方法之研究,行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局。台北。
康自立、趙志揚(2003)。台灣技職教育的過去、現在與未來。論文發表於彰化師範大學工業教育學系主辦之「2003職業教育研討會」,彰化。
黃振球(1992)。績優學校。台北:師大書苑。
黃政傑等(1996)。中小學基本學力指標之綜合規劃研究。台北:國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心。
黃正傑、李隆盛(1996)。技職教育概論。台北,師大書苑。
陳添財(2002)。綜合高中學校效能評鑑指標建構之研究。國立台北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
陳龍安(1997)。創造思考的理論與實際。台北:心理。
陳麗珠(1999)。以得懷術(Delphi method)評估台灣省教育優先區補助政策實施成效研究。教育學刊,15,35-64。new window
游家政(1996)。德懷術及其在課程研究上的應用。花蓮師院學報,6,1-24。new window
施信華(2001)。綜合高中學生學習態度、教師效能與學校效能關係之研究。彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
張碧娟(1997)。國民中學校長教學領導、學校教學氣氛與教師教學效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
張瑞村(1998)高級工業職業學校校長領導行為、教師組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
張明輝(2001)。改進中小學教育視導的相關課題-英國學校效能與學校革新研究。取自:http://web.ed.ntnu.edu.tw/minfei/artical/artical(eduadmin)-2.html
張鈿富(1996)。學校效能指標的探討:台灣的經驗。健行學報,16(3),1~16。
張鈿富(1999)。教育政策與行政─指標發展與應用。台北:師大書苑。new window
張鈿富(2000)。學校行政決定原理與實務。台北:五南。
張清濱(2001)。學校教育改革-課程與教學。台北:五南。new window
彭利源(2002)。高級職業學校後設評鑑之研究-以台灣省高職學校為例。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
楊思偉(2002)。基本能力指標之建構與落實。教育研究月刊。96,11。
廖仁智(2001)。國民中學學校本位經營模式建構之研究。國立高雄師範大學博士論文,未出版,高雄。new window
蔡進雄(1999)。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。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
鄧振源,曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)。中國統計學報,27(6),5-22。new window
鄧振源,曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)。中國統計學報,27(7),1-20。new window
鄭友超(1997)。我國高職(中)工業類科學校學校組織組織文化、組織特質、教師工作態度與學校效能之關係研究(NSC86-2516-S018-001)。彰化:國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系。new window
鄭友超(1999)。我國高職(中)工業類科學校學校效能之研究(NSC88-2516-S018-002)。彰化:國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系。
鄭友超(2002)。我國高級職業學校管理模式與學校效能相關之研究(NSC90-2516-S018-009)。彰化:國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系。
鄭燕祥(2001)。學校效能與校本管理-發展的機制。台北:心理。
潘慧玲(1999)。學校效能相關概念的釐析。教育研究資訊,7(5),138-153。new window
劉春榮(1993)國民小學組織結構、組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
謝金青(1997)。國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系之建構。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北。new window
戴文雄,張錫輝(1999)。技職教育體系課程之革新。技術及職業教育雙月刊。54,9-13。
魏建忠(2001)。綜合高中教師專業成長與學校效能關係之研究。彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文,未出版,彰化。
魏秋建、張清亮、李永晃(1997)。決策權重方法之比較分析。載於中國工業工程學會論文集, 341-347。台北:中國工業工程學會。
二、英文部分
Anderson, S. (1991). Principal’s management style and patterns of teacher implementation across multiple innovations, School effectiveness and school improvement, 2(4), 286-304.
Anthony, R. N., & Herzlinger, R. (1975). Management control in nonprofit organizations. Homewood, Ill.: Richard, D. Irwin, 316.
Averch, H. A., Carroll, S. J., Donaldson T. S., Kiesling, H. J., & Pincus J. (1974). How effective is schooling? A critcal review of research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Education technology publications.
Bottani, N., & Tuijnman, A. (1994). The design of indicator systems. in Tuijnman, A. and Postlethwaite, T.(Eds.) Monitoring the standards of education. Oxford: Elsevier science Ltd. Great Britain.
Cameron, K. S. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative science quarterly [ASQ], 23, 604 - 626.
Cheng, Y. C. (1997). A framework of indicators of education quality in Hong Kong primary schools: Development and application. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation education forum on school-based indicators of effectiveness. (ERIC document reproduction service No. ED407729).
Codianni, A. V., & Wilbur, G. (1983). More effective schooling from research to practice. N.Y.: Clearing house and Urban education.
Coleman, P., & Collinge, J. (1991). In the web: Internal and external influences affecting school improvement. School effectiveness and school improvement, 2(4), 262-285.
Creemers, B.P.M., & Scheerens, J. (1994). Developments in the educational effectiveness research program. In Bosker, R.J., Creemers, B.P.M. & Scheerens, J. (eds.). Conceptual and methodological advances in educational effectiveness research. International journal of educational research, 21, 125-138.
Cuttance, P.F. (1990). Performance indicators and the management of quality in education. Keynote address prepared for the 3rd national conference on indicators in education, Canberra.
Dallkey, N. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. CA: Rand.
Delbacq, A.L. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. N.J.: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Duignan, P. (1986). Research on effective schooling: Some implications for school improvement. The journal of educational administration, 26(1), 59-73.
Edmonds, R.R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. educational leadership, 40, 4-12.
Elliott, E. J. (1991). Education courts: An indicator system to monitor the nation’s educational health. Washington, DC: Acting commissioner of education statistics.
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T.(1996). Monitoring education: indicators, quality and effectiveness. London: Cassell.
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., & Kochan, S. (2000). School effectiveness and educational indicators. In C. Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D.(Eds.) The international handbook on school effectiveness research. London: The Falmer press.
Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules and pedagogy. Review of educational research, 64,119-157.
Hill, P.W. (1998). Shaking the foundations: Research driven school reform. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9, 419-436.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G.(1996). Educational Administration: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed). N.Y.:McgraHill, Inc.
Joint committee on standards for educational evaluation (1981). Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L.W.(1990). Unusually effective school:A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI:National center for effective schools research and development.
Miller, S. K. (1983). The history of effective schools: A critical overview. Lansing: Michigan State department of education.
Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring, A report to the public and educators by the center on organization and restructuring of schools.
Nevo, D. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement. Tel Aviv, Israel: Masada.
Nuttall, D.L. (1992). The functions and limitations of international educational indicators. In OECD, The OECD international education indicators: A framework for analysis,13-23. Paris: OECD/CERI.
OECD. (1992). The OECD international education indicators: A framework for analysis. Paris: author.
Pennycuick D. (1993). School effectiveness in developing countries:A summary of the research evidence. Department for international development, London.
Power, C. (1990). Higher education indicators: An exercise in interpretation. In Bottani, N. & Dalfau, I. (Eds.), Indicators of the quality of educational systems: An international perspective, 353-361.
Reid, K., Hopkins, D., & Holly, P. (1987). Towards the effective school: the problems and some solutions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Riddell, A. (1997). Assessing designs for school effectiveness research and school improvement in developing countries. Comparative education review, 41,178-192.
Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational behavior. N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995b) Key characteristics of effective schools: A Review of school effectiveness research, London, office for standards in education and institute of education.
Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness and the development of process indicators of school functioning. in school effectiveness and school improvement, 61-80.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R.J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Printed and bound in Great Britian by Redwood books Ltd.
Scheerens, J. (2001).School effectiveness in developing countries. School effectiveness and school improvement., 12(4),353-358.
Sizer, J., Spee, A., & Bormans, R. (1992). The role of performance indicators in higher education. Higher education management, 24,133-155。
Spee, A. & Bormans, R. (1992). Performance indicators in government institution relation: The conceptual framework. Higher education management, 4,139-155.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key of continuous school improvement (2nd ed.) Alexandria, : Virginia association for supervision and curriculum development.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1992) . Effective school change: The Halton approach. School effectiveness and school improvement, 3 (1), 19-41.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The Relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for education accountability, Journal of research and development, Fall.
Stufflebeam, D.L., Madaus, G.F., & Kellaghan, T., (2000) Evaluation models─Viewpoint on educational and human services evaluation. Kluwer academic publishers. The Netherlands.
Tedddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (1999). The international handbook of school effectiveness research journal, 27,351-362.
The Holmes group (1990). Tomorrow’s schools. East Lansing, MI: author.
Topping, K.J., & Sanders, W.L. (2000). Teacher effectiveness and computer assessment of reading-Relating value. Added and learning information system Data. School effectiveness and school improvement. 11(3). 305-337.
Ubben, G.C., & Hughes, L.W. (1992). The principal creative leadership for effective schools (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
UNESCO. (1998). Primer studio international comparative: First international comparative study. Santiago, Chile: Author.
Wasley, P., Hampel, R., & Clark, R. (1997). The puzzle of whole school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 690-971.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE