跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.218.145) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/29 13:31
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:劉莉貞
研究生(外文):Li-Jen Liou
論文名稱:技職教育指標多準則評估體系之建構與應用
論文名稱(外文):作者未提供
指導教授:李銓李銓引用關係
指導教授(外文):作者未提供
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:銘傳大學
系所名稱:管理科學研究所博士班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:160
中文關鍵詞:教育指標多評準決策模糊積分資料包絡分析技職教育多目標規劃灰關聯分析
外文關鍵詞:educational indexfuzzy integralmultiple objective programminggrey relation analysisdata envelopment analysis (DEA)technological and vocational education
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:12
  • 點閱點閱:778
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:279
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:11
技職體系學校教育效能與效率的高度發揮扮演國家社會發展的一項重要基石,藉以提昇教育品質,養成優質人力資源,進而厚植經濟競爭力。當今,先進工業國家正傾全力深耕技術密集產業,對於學用專精技術人力需求孔急,強化專科學校辦學績效,業已急遽轉化為生存課題。
本研究旨在發展出一個專科學校改制技術學院的研究體系,從建構教育指標概念層次的發展、評選關鍵性準則構面,以及績效評估面的檢視。建構教育指標概念層次的發展是透過文獻探討、專家訪談及教育部頒行之有關辦法等資料為依據,建立一適合專科學校評估之階層體系,並以此模式為基礎,進行後續評估面的研究。在教育評估指標之建構,本研究應用多變量因子分析對各準則加以分群,得到重新修正後之階層體系,結合加法型多準則決策(層級分析法)與非加法型多準則決策(模糊積分法)方法,並依據各資料項數對系統的不同影響程度給予適當權重。在績效評估面則是以投入與產出的觀點,主要採用Charnes et al. (1978)所提出傳統的資料包絡分析進行評估。最後,本文以台灣技職教育評估為例,檢驗本研究所建構之研究方法的適用性和有效性,並分析學校相對經營效率與規模效率之資源運用狀況,提供學校和教育主管機關的決策者瞭解學校競爭環境中的真實定位與提昇學校優勢的具體方向。
The satisfactory enhancement of the operational effectiveness and efficiency of technological and vocational schools is an important support for national economic development. It can improve the quality of education enterprise, supply qualified human resources, and strengthen economic competitiveness in the global market. Currently, technology-intensive industries have become mainstream industries, and those highly developed nations have been making major investments in this kind of industry, so there is an urgent demand for well-trained professionals. How to intensify their operational effectiveness is an important issue for these junior colleges.
This research develops a systematical study base for the transformation from junior college to technological institute. The main topics discussions cover the conceptual development of constructing educational evaluation indicators, the selection of key criteria dimensions, and the phases of performance evaluation. The development of conceptual levels based upon literature review, interviews with related professionals, and relevant guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education. It then constructs a hierarchical system to accomplish a productive evaluation of junior colleges, which then serves as a basis for subsequent research jobs. In the conceptual development of constructing educational evaluation indicators phase, criteria are grouped through multivariate factor analysis; there is a revised hierarchical system; and suitable weightings are assigned to data items according to their influences on the system. The weighting assignment was done using a combination of the additive multi-criteria decision-making approaches, including hierarchical analysis evaluation, together with non-additive multi-criteria decision-making approaches, including fuzzy integral evaluation. The performance evaluation phase was based on the input and output perspective, and evaluations administered by employing the data envelopment analysis of Charnes et al. (1978), as well as the revised DEA fuzzy multiple objectives programming of Chiang and Tzeng (2000). Finally, the feasibility and function of the proposed methodology were critically examined in Taiwan’s technological and vocational institutions. Resource utilization was analyzed in terms of relative operation efficiency, scale efficiency, and efficiency achievement measure. These research outcomes can help school management and educational officials to better understand the ranking of individual schools and develop ideas to successfully improve these schools.
目 錄
頁次
誌謝 Ⅰ
中文摘要 Ⅱ
英文摘要 III
目錄 V
圖目錄 VII
表目錄 VIII
第一章緒論…………………………………………….. 1
1.1 研究背景與動機…………………………………. 1
1.2 研究目的……………………………………………. 3
1.3 研究步驟……………………………………………. 4
1.4 論文結構……………………………………………. 6

第二章 理論背景與相關文獻……………….. 7
2.1 教育指標的意義……………………………………. 7
2.2 教育指標系統模式………………………………. 10
2.3 建構教育指標之程序…………………………. 16
2.4 建構教育指標之方法………………. 19
2.5 學校經營績效的意義與重要性……………………… 39
2.6 學校績效之評估指標……………………… 40
2.7 學校績效之評估程序…………………………… 52
2.8 學校績效之評估方法………………………… 54
第三章 改良方法之提出……………………………….. 67
3.1 教育評估指標之建構…………………………… 67
3.2 學校績效評估之方法…………………………… 76
第四章 多準則評估模式之應用實例………………….. 81
4.1 案例一:教育評估指標之建立…………………… 81
4.1.1 問題背景之描述………………………….. 81
4.1.2 建構教育評估指標體系………………. 82
4.1.3 結果分析與討論………………………. 93
4.1.4 結語………………………………………. 99
4.2 案例二:學校經營效率之評估………………… 100
4.2.1 問題背景之描述…………………………. 100
4.2.2 學校績效之評估程序………………………. 101
4.2.3 結果分析與討論…………………………. 107
4.2.4 結語………………………………………. 118
第五章 結論………………………………………….. 119
5.1 結論………………………………………………… 119
5.2 討論…………………………………………………… 120
5.3 後續研究方向………………………………… 124
參考文獻…………………………………………………. 126
附錄…………………………………………………….. 138
博士候選人簡歷與研究著作……………………………. 149


圖 目 錄
圖1- 1 研究流程示意圖……………………………………… 5
圖2- 1 目標的分解及其與指標的關係……………………… 11
圖2- 2 AHP層級結構示意圖……………………………….. 11
圖2- 3 「輸入-輸出」模式……………………………… 15
圖2- 4 教育指標建構流程圖…………………………… 19
圖2- 5 教育指標建構程序與模式關係圖………………… 25
圖2- 6 (C) 模糊積分之基本概念……………………….. 35

圖2- 7 灰關聯序流程圖………………………………………. 38
圖2- 8 績效評估流程圖…………………………… 54
圖2- 9 兩投入單一產出的效率衡量………………………… 57
圖2-10 純粹技術效率與規模效率圖………………………… 61
圖2-11 A&P模式示意圖…………………………………….. 61
圖2-12 Malmguist出產力指數之衡量……………………….. 62
圖2-13 DEA之運用程序圖………………………………. 66
圖3- 1 非加法型測度之灰關聯評估觀念圖……………… 69
圖4- 1 專科學校辦學整體績效評估體系圖…………… 84
圖4- 2 修正後之評估階層體系……………………………… 88
圖4- 3 技術學院相對效率及跨期效率變動分佈圖………… 118
表 目 錄
表2- 1 教育指標之定義……………………………………… 7
表2- 2 教育指標之特性……………………………………… 10
表2- 3 建構評估指標方法之比較……………………… 23
表2- 4 不同比較法相依性之有無………………………… 30
表2- 5 AHP評估尺度意義及說明…………………………… 31
表2- 6 隨機指標表…………………………………………… 33
表2- 7 國內外學校績效評估指標之實證研究……………… 42
表4- 1 專科學校評估模式衡量指標說明一覽表…. 85
表4- 2 變異數最大法(Varimax)轉軸後之因子分析結果…… 87
表4- 3 各準則與準則組合之模糊測度g(•)及相對權重值…. 90
表4- 4 共同因子之分割型模糊積分綜合評估值…………… 91
表4- 5 三種評估模式之比較………………………………… 91
表4- 6 個別群體對構面權重與變異係數之差異…………… 96
表4- 7 個別群體對評估準則權重與變異係數之差異……… 97
表4- 8 三種實證研究之比較……………………………… 99
表4- 9 投入與產出指標項目………………………………… 102
表4-10 投入產出變數………………………………………… 104
表4-11 投入產出變數之相關矩陣…………………………… 105
表4-12 技術學院之相對效率………………………………… 108
表4-13 類型學校經營效率之差異分析……………………… 109
表4-14 公立技術學院教育品質之相對效率………………… 111
表4-15 私立技術學院教育品質之相對效率………………… 111
表4-16 100班以下技術學院教育品質之相對效率…………. 112
表4-17 101-150班技術學院教育品質之相對效率…………. 113
表4-18 151-200班技術學院教育品質之相對效率…………. 113
表4-19 201班以上技術學院教育品質之相對效率…………. 114
表4-20 1995至1998年各技術學院效率變動……………… 115
一、英文部分

1.Ahn, T., Arnold, V., Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. W., “DEA and Ratio Efficiency Analysis for Public Institutions of Higher Learning in Texas,” Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1989, pp. 165-185.
2.Alvik, T., School-Based Evaluation: A Close-Up, Study in Education, 1995.
3.Andersen, L.,Walberg, H.J. and Weinstein, T., “Efficiency and Effectiveness Analysis of Chicago Public Elementary School: 1989, 1991, 1993,” Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1998, pp. 484-504.
4.Andersen, P. and Petersen, N. C., “A Procedure for Ranking Efficiency Units in Data Envelopment Analysis,” Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 10, 1993, pp. 1261-1264.
5.Avkiran, N.K., “Investigating Technical and Scale Efficiencies of Australian Universities through Data Envelopment Analysis,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, No. 35, 2001, pp. 57-80.
6.Banker, R. D., Conrad, R. F. and Strauss, R. P., “A Comparative Application of Data Envelopment Analysis and Translog Method: an Illustrative Study of Hospital Production,” Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1986, pp. 30-44.
7.Banker, R. R., Charnes, A. and Cooper W. W., “Some Models for Rstimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis,” Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 9, 1984, pp. 1078-1092.
8.Bates, J. M., “Measuring Predetermined Socioeconomic Input when Assessing the Efficiency of Educational Output,” Applied Economics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1997, pp. 85-93.
9.Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J. and Millikan, R. H., Creating an Excellent School, New York: Routledge, 1989.
10.Bessent, A., Bessent W., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Thorogood, N., “Evaluation of Educational Program Proposals by Means of Data Envelopment Analysis,” Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1983, pp. 82-107.
11.Bessent, A., Bessent, W., Kennington, J. and Reagan, B., “An Application of Mathematical Programming to Assess Productivity in the Houston Independent School District,” Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 12, 1982, pp. 1355-1367.
12.Blank, P. K., “Developing a System of Education Indicators: Selecting, Implementing, and Reporting Indicator,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1993, pp. 65-80.
13.Boussofiane A., Dyson, R. G. and Thanassoulis E., “Appied Data Envelopment Analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 52, 1991, pp. 1-15.
14.Burstein, L., Oakes, J. and Guiton, G., “Education Indicators,” In M. C. Alkin, M. Linden, J. Noel, and K. Ray (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research (6th ed.), New York: Macmillan, 1992, pp. 409-418.
15.Byrnes, P., Färe, R. and Grosskopf, S., “Measuring Productive Efficiency: An Application to Illinois Strip Mines,” Management Science, Vol. 30, 1984, pp. 671-681.
16.Cave, M., Hanney, S. and Kogan, M., The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley, 1988.
17.Cave, M., Hanney, S. and Kogan, M., The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Development in Practice, 3th ed., London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1997.
18.Caves, D., Christensen, L. and Diewert E., “The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output and Productivity,” Econometrica Vol. 50, No. 6, 1982, pp. 1393-1414.
19.Charnes A., Cooper W. W. and Rhode E., “Evaluating Program and Monogerial Efficiency: An Application of DEA to Program Follow through,” Management Science, Vol. 27, No. 6, 1981, pp. 668-697.
20.Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E., “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1978, pp. 429-444.
21.Chen, T. Y., Wang, J. C., and Tzeng, G. H., “Identification of Gneral Fzzy Masures by Gnetic Agorithms Bsed on Prtial Information,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part B: Cybernetics, Vol. 30B, No. 4, 2000, pp. 517-528.
22.Chen, Y. W. and Tzeng, G. H., “Using Fuzzy Integral for Evaluating Subjectively Perceived Travel Costs in a Traffic Assignment Model,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 130, No. 3, 2001, pp. 653-664.
23.Cheng, Y. C., “The Theory and Characteristics of School-Based Management.” International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 7, No. 6, 1993, pp. 6-17.
24.Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L. and Arnoff, E. L., Introduction to Operations Research, Wiley, New York, 1957.
25.Climaco, C., “Getting to Know Schools Using Performance Indicators:Criteria, Indicators and Process,” Educational Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, 1992, pp. 295-308.
26.Colbert, A., Levary, R.R. and Shaner, M.C., “Determining the Relative Efficiency of MBA Programs Using DEA,” European Journal of Operational Research, No. 125, 2000, pp. 656-669.
27.Coleman, P. and Colinge, J., “In the Web: Internal and External Influences Affecting School Improvement,” School Effective and School Improvement, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991, pp. 262-285.
28.Cooley, W. W., et al., Educational Indicators for Pennsylvania, 1992. (ERIC Document Roproduct Service NO. ED 352403).
29.Cooper, W.W., Hwang, Z. and Li, S.X., “Satisfying DEA Models under Chance Constraints,” Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 66, 1996, pp. 279-295.
30.Creemers, B. P. M., School Effectiveness, Effective Instruction and School Improvement in the Netherlands, in D. Reynolds and P. Cuttance (Eds.), School Efectiveness Rsearch, Policy and Practice, London: Cassell, 1992, pp. 48-70.
31.Cuttance, P. F., Performance Indicators and the Management of Quality in Education, Keynote Address Prepared for the 3rd National Conference on Indicators in Education, Canberra, 1990.
32.David, J. L. “The Use of Indicators by School Districts: Aid or Threat to Improvement?” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 69, No. 7, 1988, pp. 499-502.
33.David, J. L., “Synthesis of Research on School-Based Management,” Educational Leadership, Vol. 46, No. 8, 1989, pp. 45-53.
34.Deng, J., “Introduction to Grey System Theory,” The Journal of Grey System, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1989, pp. 1-24.
35.DeRoche, E. F., An Administratior’s Guide for Evaluation Programs and Personnel: An Effective Schools Approach (2nd ed), Newton Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1987.
36.Drucker, P. F., Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, NY: Harper and Row, 1974.
37.Easton, P. A., et al., Collaborative Design of Educational Indicator System in Developing Countries:An Interview Report an IEES Project Initative, 1993. (ERIC Document Reproduct Service NO. ED 367321).
38.Edmond, D.R., “The Development and Use of Educational Indicator Systems,” Education Canada, Winter, 1992, pp. 9-19.
39.Elliott, E. J., Education Counts: An Indicator System to Monitor the Nation’s Educational Health, Washington, DC: Acting Commissioner of Education Statistics, 1991.
40.Engert, F.M., A Study of School District Efficiency in New York State Using Data Envelopment Analysis, Dissertation Abstracts International, 1995.
41.Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lindgren, B. and Roos P., “Productivity Changes in Swedish Pharmacies 1980-1989: A Non-Parametric Malmquist Approach,” The Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1992, pp. 85-101.
42.Farrell, M. J., “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, Vol. 120, Part 3, 1957, pp. 253-281.
43.Fidler, B. and Bowles, G., Effective Local Management of School, London: Longman, 1989.
44.Finn, C. E., Elementary and Secondary Education Indicators, Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1987.
45.Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., Indicator Systems for School and Teacher Evaluation: Fire-Fighting It Is! Paper Presented at the Annual National Evaluation Institute of the Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, 1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379340).
46.Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., Performance Indicators, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1990.
47.Fizel, J.L. and Nunnikhoven, T.S., ”Technical Efficiency of For-Profit and Non-Profit Nursing Homes,” Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 13, 1992, pp. 429-439.
48.Golany, B. and Roll, Y., “An Application Procedure of DEA,” OMEAG, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1989, pp. 237-250.
49.Guo, H., “Identification Coefficient of Relational Grade of Grey System,” The Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, Vol. 3, No. 2 1985, pp. 55-58.
50.Hanushek, E. A., “The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1986, pp. 1141-1177.
51.Harker, P. T., The Art and Science of Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, in The Analytic Hierarchy Process Golden, B. L., Wasil, E.A., and P. T. Harker (eds.), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989, pp. 3-36.
52.Higgins, J. C., “Performance Measurement in Universities,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1989, pp. 358-368.
53.Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G., Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice (3rded.), New York: Random House, 1987.
54.Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G., Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice (3rded.), New York: Random House, 1991.
55.Hufner, K., “Differentiation and Competition in Higher Education: Recent Trends in the Federal Republic of Germany,” European Journal of Education, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1987, pp. 133-143.
56.Hwang C. L. and Yoon K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
57.Inbar, D. E., “Quality Educational Indicators in a Nation in the Making: The Case of Israel,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1988, pp. 55-63.
58.Jarratt, T., Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in University, London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 1985.
59.Jensen R. E., “An Alternatives Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 28, 1984, pp. 317-332.
60.Johnstone, J. N., Indicators of Education Systems, Paris: UNESCO, 1981.
61.Kaiser, H. F., “The Varimax Criteria for Analysis Rotation in Factor Analysis,” Psychometrika, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1958, pp. 187-200.
62.Kao, C., “Evaluation of Junior Colleges of Technology: The Taiwan Case,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 72, No. 1, 1994, pp. 43-51.
63.Kao, C. and Hung, H.T., Ranking University Libraries With a Posteriori Weights, Libri, 2003
64.Kassem, D. M., “Human Resource Planning and Organizational Performance: an Exploratory Analysis,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1987, pp. 387-392.
65.Keeney R. L. and Raiffa H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Preferences and Value Trade Offs, Cambridge University Press, 1976.
66.Kirjavainen, T. and Loikkanen, H. A., “Efficiency Differences of Finnish Senior Secondary Schools: An Application of DEA and Tobit Analysis,” Economics of Education Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1998, pp. 377-394.
67.Lee, K. M. and Leekwang, H., “Identification of λ- fuzzy Measure by Genetic Algorithm,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 75, No. 3, 1995, pp. 301-309.
68.Lewin, A. Y. and Minton, J. W., “Determining Organizational Effectiveness: Another Look, and an Agenda for Research,” Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 12, 1986, pp. 514-538.
69.Lewin, A. Y., Morey, R. C. and Cook, T. J., “Evaluating the Aministrative Eficiency of Courts,” OMEGA, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1982, pp. 401-411.
70.Lovell, C. A. and Bauer, P., ”Bank Efficiency Derived from the Profit Function-Output Allocative and Technical Efficiency of Banks-Comments,” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 17, 1993, pp. 367-370.
71.MacCrimmon, K., Improving the System Design and Evaluation Process by the Use of Trade-Off Information: An Application to Northeast Corridor Transportation Planning RM-5877-DOT, the Rand Corporation, Santa Cal, 1969.
72.Mayston, D. J. and Jesson, D. J., “Developing Models of Educational Accountability,” Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 14, 1988, pp. 321-339
73.Mayston, D. J. and Jesson, D. J., “Educational Performance Assessment: A New Framework of Analysis,” Policy and Politics, Vol. 19, 1991, pp. 99-108.
74.Mayston, D. J., “Non-profit Performance Indicators in the Public Sector,” Financial Accountablity and Management, Vol. 1, 1985, pp. 51-74
75.McMahon, W.W., Efficiency and Equity Criteria for Educational Budgeting and Finance, in W.W. McMahon & T.G.. Geske(Eds.), Financing Education:Overcoming Inefficiency and Ineguity(pp. 1-29), Chicago:University of Illinois Press, 1982.
76.Miguel, M. M. and Ordenez, V. M., “The Philippine Elementary School System,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1988, pp. 37-45.
77.Mon, D. L., Tzeng, G. H. and Lu H.C., “Grey Decision Making in Weapon System Evaluation,” Journal of Chung Cheng Institute of Technology, Vol. 24, No. 1 1995, pp. 73-84.
78.Mori, T. and Murofushi, T., “An Analysis of Evaluation Model Using Fuzzy Measure and the Choquet Integral,” Proceedings of the 5th Fuzzy Systems Symposium, 1989, pp. 207-212. (in Japanese)
79.Murofushi, T. and Sugeno, M., “A Theory of Fuzzy Measures Representations, the Choquet Integral, and Unll Sets,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol. 159, No. 2, 1991, pp. 532-549.
80.Murofushi, T. and Sugeno, M., “An Interpretation of Fuzzy Measures and the Choquet Integral as an Integral with Respect to a Fuzzy Measure,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1989, pp. 201-227.
81.Norman, M., and Stoker, B., Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of Performance, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
82.Norris, N., Evaluation, Economics and Performance Indicators, in J. Elliott (Ed.), Reconstructing Teacher Education: Teacher Development, London: The Falmer Press, 1993, pp. 31-39.
83.Nuttall, D., The Functions and Limitations of International Education Indicators ,in the OECD International Education Indicators: A Framework for Analysis, France: OECD, 1992, pp. 13-21.
84.Oakes, J., “What Educational Indicators? The Case for Assessing the School Context,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1989, pp. 181-199.
85.Oakes, J., Educational Indicators: A Guide for Policymakers, Santa Monica, CA: Center for Policy Research in Education, 1986.
86.Odden, A., “Educational Indicators in the United States: The Need for Analysis,” Educational Researcher, June-July, 1990, pp. 24-29.
87.OECD, Schools an Quality, Parres: OECD, 1989.
88.OECD, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD, 1992.
89.Plomp, T., Huijsman, H. and Hluyfhout, E., “Monitoring in Educational Development Projects: The Development of a Monitoring System,” International Journal Educational Development, Vol. 12, 1992, pp. 65-73.
90.Porter, A. C., “Creating a System of School Process Indicators,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1991, pp. 13-29.
91.Power, C., “Assessing the Effectiveness of Secondary Schooling in Australia,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1989, pp. 47-71.
92.Ralescu, D. A. and Adams, G., “Fuzzy Integral,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, Vol. 75, No. 2, 1980, pp. 562-570.
93.Ralph, J. H. and Fennessey, J., “Science or Reform: Some Questions about the Effective Schools Models,” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 64, No. 10, 1983, pp. 689-695.
94.Ramsden, P., “A Performance Indicator of Teaching Quality in Higher Education: The Course Experience Questionnaire,” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1991, pp. 129-150.
95.Renkiewicz, N., Lewis, M. and Hamre, B., Indicators and Measures of Successful Community College, Paper Presented at the 59th Annual CACC Convention, Sacramento, 1988.
96.Reynolds, D. and Cuttance, P., School Effectiveness: Research, Policy and Practice, London: Villiers House, 1992.
97.Robbins, S.P., Management, 4th ed., NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
98.Rubenstein, A. H. and Geisler, E., “Evaluating the Outputs and Impacts of R&D/Innovation,” IJTM, Special Publication on the Role of Technology in Corporate Policy, 1991, pp. 181-204.
99.Rummel, R., Applied Factor Analysis, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1970.
100.Saaty T. L., “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1977, pp. 234-281.
101.Saaty T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
102.Saaty, T. L., “Absolute and Relative Measurement with the AHP: The Most Livable Cities in the United States,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 6, 1986, pp. 327-331.
103.Scheerens, J., “Process Indicator of School Functioning: A Selection Based on the Research Literature on School Effectiveness,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 17, 1991, pp. 371-403.
104.Scheerens, J., “School Effectiveness Research and the Development of Process Indicators of School Functioning,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990, pp. 61-80.
105.Selden, R. W., “Developing Educational Indicators: A State-National Perspective, In Bottani, N. and Delfau. I. (Eds.): Indicators of the Quality of Educational System: An International Perspective,” International Journal of Education Research, Vol. 14, 1990, pp. 389-93.
106.Sengupta, J.K., “ Tests of Efficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis, ” Computer Operation Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1990, pp. 123-132.
107.Shavelson, R. J., McDonnell, Oakes (Eds.), Indicators for Monitoring Mathematics and Science Education, Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1989.
108.Shavelson, R., McDonnell, L., Oakes, J. and Carey, N., Indicator Systems for Monitoring Mathematics and Science Education, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1987.
109.Shepard, R. W., The Theory of Cost and Production Function, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.
110.Shi, K., Grey Relation Theory and its Applications, ISUMA90, U.S.A., 1990.
111.Smith, M., “Educational Indicators,” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 69, 1988, pp. 487-491.
112.Smith, P. and Mayston, D., “Measuring Efficiency in the Public Sector,” OMEGA, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1987, pp. 181-189.
113.Stern, J. D., The Condition of Education: Elementary and Secondary Education, Washington, DC: National Center of Educational Statistics, 1988.
114.Sugeno, M. and Kwon, S. H., “A Clusterwise Regression-Type Model for Subjective Evaluation,” Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Systems, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1995, pp. 291-310.
115.Sugeno, M., Theory of Fuzzy Integrals and Its Applications, Ph. D. Dissertation, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1974.
116.Sugiyama, K., Tagawa, S. and Toda, M., “Methods for Visual Understanding of Hierarchical System Structures,” IEEE Transation on Systems, Man , and Cybernetics, SMC, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1981, pp. 109-125.
117.Szilagyi, A.D., Management and Performance, 2nd, NJ: Scott Foresman and Co. 1984.
118.Teather, D.C.B., Performance Indicators in Australian Higher Education: The Context and an Appraisal of the 1988 Report, in F. Dochy, M. Segers, and W. Wijnen (Eds.), Management Information and Performance Indicators in Higher Education (pp. 103-118), Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen, 1990.
119.Tzeng, G. H. and Tsaur, S. H., “The Multiple Criteria Evaluation of Grey Relation Model,” The Journal of Grey System, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1994, pp. 87-108.
120.van Herpen, M., Conceptual Models in Use for Education Indicators, in OECD (Ed.), International Education Indicator: A Framework for Analysis, Paris: OECD, 1992, pp. 25-51.
121.Vargas, L. G., “An Overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48, No. 1, 1990, pp. 2-8.
122.Wallmark, J. T., McQueen, D. H. and Sedig, K.G., “Measurement of Output from University Research: A Case Study”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 35, 1988, pp. 175-180.
123.Wen, K. L. and Wu, J. H., “On Identification Coefficient & Relational Grade,” The Journal of Grey System, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1996, pp. 11-18.
124.White, P. A., An Overview of School-Based Management: What does the Research Say? NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 518, 1989, pp. 1-8.
125.Whyte, L. L., Hierarchical Structure, New York: American Elsevier, 1969.
126.Wind, Y. and Saaty, T.L., “Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Management Science, Vol. 26,No. 7, 1980, pp. 641-658.
127.Windham, D. M., “Effectiveness Indicators in the Economic Analysis of Educational Activities,” International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1988b, pp. 575-666.
128.Windham, D.M. and Chapman, D.M., The Evaluation of Educational Efficiency:Constraints, Issues and Policies, London:Jai Press,1990.
129.Windham, D.M., Improving the Efficiency of Educational System: Indicators of Educational Effectiveness and Efficiency, Albany: State University of New York, 1988a.
130.Yoon, K. and Hwang, C. L., “Manufacturing Plant Location Analysis by Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Part I-Single-Plant Strategy,” International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1985, pp. 345-359.
131.Yu, P. L., Multiple-Criteria Decision Making, Concepts, Techniques and Extension, Plenum Press, New York, 1985.
132.Zomorrodian, M.R., Guidelines for Improving Efficiency in Elementary Schools in Western Massachusetts:A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 51, No. 7, 2264A, 1990.(University Microfilms No. 90-35426).





















二、中文部分

1.王文科,「台灣地區國民中小學特殊教育發展指標之研究(1) ……啟智教育部份」,彰化師範大學特殊教育學系,民國83年。
2.王保進,「高等教育表現指標之研究」,政治大學教育研究所博士論文,民國82年7月。
3.王保進,「評鑑高等教育的表現指標可行模式之研究」,國科會研究彙刊:人文及社會科學,第六卷,第一期,民國84年,頁127-147。
4.江志坤,「時報鷹職業棒球隊員績效評估之研究-資料包絡分絡分析(DEA)法」,國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民國84年6月。
5.吳政達,「階層分析法與模糊評估法在學前教育指標系統之應用」,國立政治大學教育系碩士論文(未出版),民國84年5月。
6.吳清山,「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,民國78年6月。
7.吳清山,「學校效能研究」,台北:五南圖書出版社,民國81年。
8.邢台平,「警察機關刑事偵防績效評估之研究-資料包絡分析法(DEA)之應用」,國立中央警察大學行政警察研究所碩士論文,民國88年6月。
9.林邵仁,「我國高級中學後設評鑑指標研究」,國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,民國90年6月。
10.施穎偉,「電子商務環境供應鏈供需互動模式之研究」,國立政治大學資訊管理研究所博士論文,民國89年9月。
11.高強、黃旭男、Sueyoshi,「管理績效評估—資料包絡分析法」,華泰文化,民國92年。
12.夏部賢、吳漢雄,「灰關聯分析之線性數據前處理探討」,灰色系統學刊,第一卷,第一期,民國87年,頁47-53。
13.孫志麟,「國民教育指標的建構與應用」,政治大學教育研究所博士論文(未出版),民國87年7月。
14.孫志麟,「教育指標的概念模式」,教育政策論壇,第三卷,第一期,民國89年,頁117-135。
15.張美蓮,「我國大學教育指標建構之研究」,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,民國85年7月。
16.張紹文,「分析層級程序法在行銷資源分配上之應用」,國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民國72年6月。
17.張鈿富,「台灣地區教育指標建構之研究」,台北:國科會,民國84年。
18.張德儀,「台灣地區國際觀光旅館業資源能力與經營績效因果關係之研究」,銘傳大學管理科學研究所博士論文,民國92年1月。
19.張錫峰、周齊武,「資料包絡分析及其在效率評估上之應用」,會計評論,第二十六期,民國81年,頁76-92。
20.教育部,「82-85學年度私立大學校院中程校務發展計劃審查報告」,高教簡訊,特刊,民國83年。
21.郭昭佑,「教育評鑑指標建構方法探究」,國教學報,第十三期,民國90年,頁251-278。
22.郭昭佑,「學校本位評鑑對台灣教育評鑑的啟示」,學校行政雙月刊,民國89年。
23.陳明璋,「組織效能及其決定因素關係之研究」,政大學報,第四十五期,民國71年,頁117- 149。
24.陳榮方,「以資料包絡法評量我國大學校院之教育品質」,高雄科學技術學院學報,第二十八期,民國87年,頁227-237。
25.陳澄隆,「國內定期航運公司營運績效之研究-應用資料包絡分析法(DEA)」,國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文,民國89年6月。
26.曾國雄,「都會區環境品質及其改善策略之研究─多評準決策之應用」,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告(編號:NSC 80-0421-E009-08E),民國81年。
27.曾國雄、胡宜珍,「公車系統營運與服務績效之評估研究-灰色多準則評估之應用」,中國模糊學會,第一卷,第一期,民國84年,頁49-62。
28.曾國雄、胡宜珍,「公車系統營運與服務績效指標擷取之研究-灰色關聯分析之應用」,中國模糊學會,第二卷,第一期,民國85年,頁73-82。
29.游自達,「中小學教育指標建構之研究」,國民教育研究集刊,第八期,民國89年,頁33-59。
30.游家政,「國民小學後設評鑑標準之研究」,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文(未出版) ,民國83年7月。
31.湯堯,「台灣地區之技職教育指標建構研究」,教育政策論壇,第四卷,第一期,民國90年,頁53-79。
32.黃旭男,「資料包絡分析法使用程序之研究及其在非營利組織效率評估上之應用」,國立交通大學管理科學研究所博士論文,民國82年4月。
33.黃俊英,「多變量分析」,中國經濟研究所出版,民國80年。
34.黃政傑,「亞太教育標準專案報告」,台北:教育部教育研究委員會,民國81年。
35.黃政傑,「課程評鑑」,台北:師大學苑,民國79年。
36.楊俊宏,「DEA應用在行政機關生產力衡量方法之研究-以北高二市各戶政事務所為例」, 國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所,民國85年6月。
37.廖泉文,「高等教育系統工程」,福建:廈門大學出版社,民國79年。
38.劉玉雯,「我國國民教育指標與統計現況之研究」,國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,民國87年7月。
39.劉慶中,「教育經費公平性與四分區技術效率問題之研究:以屏東縣國民小學為例」,行政院國家科學研究委員會專題研究計劃成果報告(計劃編號:NSC81-0301-H153-501-J1)民國85年,頁21。
40.鄭湧涇,「科學教育指標之研究:科學學習進展指標」,合作研究計劃的規劃及推動,科學發展月刊,第二十二卷第五期抽印本,民國83年。
41.鄭燕祥,「教育的弁鉬P效能(四版)」,香港:廣角鏡出版社有限公司,民國84年。
42.鄭燕祥,「教育的弁鉬P效能(初版)」,香港:廣角鏡出版社有限公司,民國75年。
43.鄧振源、曾國雄,「層級分析法的內涵特性與應用(下)」,中國統計學報,第二十七卷,第七期,民國78年,頁13767-13870。
44.鄧振源、曾國雄,「層級分析法的內涵特性與應用(上)」,中國統計學報,第二十七卷,第六期,民國78年,頁13707-13724。
45.鄧振源、蕭再安、曾國雄,「大學教師升等綜合評審方法之研究」,載于黃正傑、歐陽教主編,「大學教育的革新」,台北,師大書苑,民國83年,頁215-237。
46.謝金青,「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,民國86年7月。
47.顧志遠,「有關非營利機關效率評估及預算再分配之整體規劃模式研究」,國立清華大學工業工程研究所碩士論文,民國76年6月。
48.Teddlie著,楊宗仁譯,「背景變項在學校效能研究上之使用」,發表於國立高雄師範大學舉辦之「學校有效教學與管理學術研習會」論文,高雄:國立高雄師範大學,民國82年。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top