跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.68.118) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 19:41
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:卓新惠
研究生(外文):Cho Hsin Hui
論文名稱:大學評鑑量化指標之多準則決策
論文名稱(外文):MCDM Techniques for Performance Evaluation of Higher Education Based on Quantitative Indicators
指導教授:吳泓怡吳泓怡引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:開南大學
系所名稱:企業管理學系碩士班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:120
中文關鍵詞:評鑑指標多準則決策(MCDM)層級程序分析法(AHP)折衷排序法(VIKOR)績效評估
外文關鍵詞:Evaluation CriteriaMultiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR)Performance Evaluation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:297
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
教育為立國之本,關係國家的發展和文化的延續,尤其是「高等教育」更是培養高科技人才和社會菁英之搖籃,近年來台灣之大學校院快速擴張,截至2006年已達162所,大學院校數量不斷擴增,雖翻新「外殼」,但教學、師資等「內在品質」及辦學績效卻未見提昇。大學評鑑標準未依各校屬性作適當分類,評鑑指標分類不清楚,尤其量化指標權重不明確,無法反映教育經營績效,故常引起爭議,至今國內並無發展出一套可令社會大眾信服的績效評鑑或排名標準方式。由於大學校務綜合評鑑的各項評鑑指標之權重視為同等重要;即便有部份相關研究僅偏重學校評鑑指標項目,亦未考量指標權重分配。然而,評鑑指標可能因權重的不同,而產生不同的評鑑結果。執是,本研究係以探討大學評鑑之量化指標為主,其採用台灣評鑑協會之量化指標為依據,使用多準則決策(Multiple Criteria Decision-Making, MCDM)之層級程序分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP),彙整專家學者意見,分析各項評鑑指標之相對重要性,建立各項評鑑指標之權重與優先順序,再以折衷排序法(VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje, VIKOR)針對教育部所公佈之12所文法商之私立大學進行績效評估之實證分析。本研究結果發現,專家學者認為評估類別中以「專業類別」重要性大於「校務類別」;評估構面以「師資」、「教學」及「研究」三項最重要;評估準則中以「師生比」、「外師授課比」及「專兼任教師」為最重視之項目;而評估指標中則以「專任外籍教師授課比例」、「一般師生比」、「學生與行政支援人力比」、及「就業輔導活動總數」等為較重要。此外,本研究依據彙整之各項評估指標權重,對12所私立大學次級資料進行綜合績效評比,並與教育部公佈評鑑結果作比較。而研究結果顯示,本研究之加權綜合績效值與教育部之評比結果略有出入;然而各校,尤其績效表現較差之學校,更可藉由本研究結果評斷出其應加強之項目,權衡指標之輕重,於有限之資源作最佳之績效提昇。最後,本研究建立之量化評鑑指標權重值,亦能提供各大學院校及教育相關單位,作為實施評鑑、績效改善、與教育政策制定之客觀重要參考。
“Education” which has great impacts on the development and cultural continuation of a country is the most important foundation for a nation. In particular, the institutions providing "higher education" such as universities or colleges are thought of as primary places for cultivating high-tech talents and elites. Recently, the number of universities has been increasingly growing in Taiwan. According to the officially statistical data, up to 2006, the universities have reached to 162. The unceasingly increasing quantities of universities has renovated the “outer covering”, however, the “intrinsic quality” of teaching, teachers etc. and school performance have not been promoted basically. The evaluation criteria of universities are not properly classified with regard to the attributes of schools. Even the classification of evaluation indexes is not very clear, especially the weights of quantification indexes. Therefore, the evaluation criteria of universities used currently can not assess accurately school performance. Then, it causes dispute easily and makes many universities feel dissatisfied with unfair evaluation results. So far, a fair and convincible performance evaluation or ranking standards of the universities in our country has not yet been developed. Currently, the evaluation criteria of quantification indexes used by the universities have no assigned weights. In addition, even most related previous research only focused the evaluation items of school management performance without considering weights as well. However, the evaluation results may be different because of different weights of evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the research is aimed at exploring the quantification evaluation indexes of universities. The basis of quantification indexes of the evaluation framework is proposed by the Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association (TWAEA). And it employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) to collect and synthesize the experts’ opinions and analyze the relative weights among the evaluation indexes. Then, the VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method is adopted for performance evaluation using an empirical study of 12 private universities listed by Ministry of Education. The results of analysis indicate that the “evaluation category” of “professions” is more important than the one of “administrative affairs” in universities; three “evaluation dimensions” such as “quality of teachers,” “quality of teaching,” and “quality of research” are most important; “the ratio of teachers to students,” “the ratio of foreign teachers,” and “the ratio of full-time teachers to part-time teachers” are three most concerned “evaluation criteria.”; and “the proportion of full-time foreign teachers,” “the ratio of teachers to students ", “the ratio of students to administrative support manpower,” and “the total number of employment counseling” and so on are most emphasized. Furthermore, on the basis of collected secondary data of 12 private universities published by the Ministry of Education, the research analyzes synthesis performance of each school against the weights of each evaluation index. Then, it compares the ranking of results with the one of the Ministry of Education. The results of comparison show slightly discrepancy; however, all the universities, especially schools with poor performance, may diagnose themselves through the performance evaluation to pinpoint out the most needed improvements. And it can help the schools to achieve optimal promotion of performance with limited resources. Finally, it is hoped that the findings of research can provide as principle reference for the universities and related educational institutions while carrying out evaluation, improving performance and forming educational policies.
誌 謝 I
摘 要 II
Abstract III
目 錄 V
表 次 VII
圖 次 IX

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與範圍 3
第三節 研究重要性 5
第四節 研究流程 5

第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 國內大學評鑑制度之沿革與發展 7
第二節 國內外高等教育績效評估相關研究 11
第三節 國內外高等教育評鑑的現況 16
第四節 大學校務綜合評鑑 34

第三章 研究設計 42
第一節 研究架構 42
第二節 研究變數與衡量 44
第三節 問卷設計 47
第四節 研究對象與資料蒐集 47
第五節 資料分析法 49
第六節 研究限制 59
第四章 實證結果分析與討論 60
第一節 AHP專家問卷資料分析 60
第二節 文法商私立大學績效評估 70

第五章 結論與建議 82
第一節 研究結論 82
第二節 管理實務意涵 84
第三節 後續研究建議 85

參考文獻 86
附錄一 92
附錄二 103
附錄三 104
壹、中文部份

1.王進保(1994),「高等教育表現指標之研究」,國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
2.王進保(2003),「規劃成立大學評鑑事務之財團法人專責單位報告」,教育部委託專題研究報告,台北市:教育部。
3.王國明(1993),「高等教育管理決策支援系統建立」,教育部專題研究計畫結案報告。
4.王如哲(1995),「英國大學研究評鑑作業活動的緣起、現況與展望—兼論我國高等教育研究發展的啟示」,中國教育學會教育評鑑,359-390,台北市。
5.田振榮(2002),「建立技專校院提升教學品質指標之研究」,教育部技職司委託研究計畫。
6.台灣評鑑協會(2005),取自http://ua.twaea.org.tw/。
7.台灣評鑑協會(2006),「評鑑雙月刊」,(1),48-49。
8.台灣評鑑協會(2004),「學校務評鑑規劃與實施計畫—評鑑手冊」,28-32。
9.侯永琪(2006a),「台灣評鑑協會評鑑雙月刊」,(1),25-28。
10.侯永琪(2006b),「台灣評鑑協會評鑑雙月刊」,(4),26-30。
11.陳蓁邑(2006),「台灣評鑑協會評鑑雙月刊」,(3),51-52。
12.林如貞、田效文、張婷婷、陳元和(2005),「應用AHP探討技專校院經營績效指標」,商管科技季刊,6(1),93-113。
13.高等教育評鑑中心(2006),「大學校院系所評鑑實施計」,取自http://www.heeact.org.tw。
14.高教司(1992),「八十一至八十四學年度國立大學校院中程校務發展計畫綜合報告」,教育部高教簡訊(特刊)。
15.馬莉莎(2004),「應用模糊層級程序分析法之知識產業績效評估模式-以大學評鑑系統為例」,大葉大學工業工程與科技管理學系碩士論文。
16.秦夢群(1998),台灣大學評鑑制度的分析與檢討,載於胡悅倫(主編),「海峽兩岸大學教育評鑑之研究」,107-134,台北:師大書苑。
17.郭峻韶(2003),「台灣地區公私立大學院校之效率差異研究-應用調整環境變數與干擾之資料包絡法」,東吳大學會計研究所碩士論文。
18.張力允(1999),「我國公私立大學校院經營績效之比較研究」,國立中正大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
19.教育部(2006),「大專校院數量統計」,台北:教育部統計處。
20.教育部高教司(1993),「大學校院教育評鑑」,台北:教育部。
21.教育部高教司(1997),「八十六學年度大學綜合評鑑試辦計畫評鑑手冊」,台北:教育部。
22.教育部高教司(2004),「大學校務評鑑規劃與實施計畫-評鑑手冊」,台北:社團法人台灣評鑑協會。
23.教育部各公私立大學校務評鑑資訊系統(2005),取自http://twaea.cycu.edu.tw/。
24.黃聖凱、陳啟光(2000),「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。
25.張美蓮(1996),「我國大學教育指標建構之研究」,國立台灣大學教育研究所碩士論文。台北市。
26.陳漢強、蘇錦麗、陳麗珠(1992),「國內大學評鑑委託公正學術團體辦理之研究與評論」,新竹:國立新竹師範學院教學與學校評鑑中心。
27.陳美華(2004),「台灣私立大學經營績效之研究:資料包絡分析法之應用」,佛光人文社會學院經濟學研究所碩士論文。
28.陳姿吟(2005),「ISO/IWA2國際教育品質管理系統應用於我國大學評鑑標準之研究」,品質月刊,41(6),79-84。
29.康龍魁、許順發(2004),「技專院校經營效率評鑑指標建構之研究」,教育政策論壇,7(1),59-82。
30.馮正民、邱裕鈞(2004),「研究分析方法」,台北:建都文化事業股份有限公司。
31.湯家偉(2005),「台灣地區大學排名指標建構之研究」,政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
32.湯堯(2001),「學校經營管理策略:大學經費分配、募款與行銷」,台北:五南股份有限公司。
33.湯堯、成群豪(2004),「高等教育經營」,台北市:高等教育文化事業有限公司。
34.楊玉惠(2003),「我國大學評鑑實施與制度規劃之探討」,載於私立淡江大學主辦「大學校院品質指標建立之理論與實際學術研討會」論文集,28-35,台北:淡江大學。
35.游伯龍(1985),「行為與決策:知己知彼的基礎與應用」,台北:中央研究院經濟研究所。
36.黃政傑、李隆盛、黃坤錦、張善楠、蘇錦麗、顧志遠、張美連、詹惠雪、林青青(1998),「大學校務綜合評鑑指標建構研究」,137,台灣師範大學教育研究中心成果報告。
37.黃義中(2002),「大學的經營績效與品質」,逢甲大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
38.蔡淑如(2003),「以資料包絡分析法(DEA)評估科技大學之辦學績效」,朝陽科技大學工業工程與管理研究所碩士論文。
39.蘇錦麗(1995),「大學學門評鑑試辦計畫成效評估之研究」,台北市:師大書苑。
40.蘇錦麗(1996),「學校評鑑研究:大學評鑑之理論與實務」,行政院國家科學專題研究計畫成果報告。
41.蘇錦麗(1997),「高等教育評鑑:理論與實務」,台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
42.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。
43.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),1-19。
44.鐘梅雪(2005),「應用資料包絡分析法之高等教育績效評估實證研究」,大葉大學工業工程與科技管理學系碩士論文。
貳、英文部分

1.Avkiran, N. K. (2001), “Investigating Technical and Scale Efficiencies of Australian Universities Through Data Envelopment Analysis”, Socio-Ecnomic Planning Sciences, 30, pp. 1078-1092.
2.Boatright, K. J. (1995), “Directions for Higher Education. University of Wisconsin's System Accountability”, 91, pp. 51-63.
3.Hanney, Cave, M., S. and Kogan, N. (1991), “The Use of Performance Indicator in Higher Education: A critical Analysis of Developing Practice”, London:Jessica Kingsley.
4.Dill, D. D., and Teixeira, P. (2000), “Program Diversity in Higher Education: An Economic Perspective”, Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 99-117.
5.Dill, D. D. (1997), “Higher Education Markets and Public Policy, Higher Education Policy, 10 (4), pp.167-185.
6.Fairweather, J. S. (2000), “Diversification or Homogenization: How Markets and Governments Combine to Shape American Higher Education”, Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 79-98.
7.Green, D.E. (1994), “What is Quality in Higher education, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University”, Higher Education Policy, 10, pp. 65-77.
8.Johnes, J., and Taylor, J. (1990), “Performance Indicators in Higher Education”, UK: Open University Press.
9.Japanese University Accreditation Association (2004), “Japan University Accreditation Association” Retrieved September 23, 2004, from. http://www.juaa.or.jp/english/
10.Kells, H. R. (1988), “Self-Study Processes”, NY: Macmillan.
11.Luchaire, F. and Massit-Follea, F.(1993), “Role of The National Evaluation Committee France”, European Education, 25(4), pp. 67-76.
12.Meek, V. L. (2000), “Diversity and Market I Sation of Higher Education: Incompatible Concepts”, Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 23-39.
13.Morse Robert J., and Samel M. Flanigan. (2002), “How We Rank Schools”, U.S. News and World Reports, Retrieved Jan 23, 2002 from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/02cbrank.htm.
14.McGhee, P. (2003), “The Academic Quality Handbook: Enhancing Higher Education in Universities and Further Education Colleges”, London/Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.
15.Mr. Rama Thirunamachandran (2004), Accessing Research and Teaching.
16.National Institute of Standard of Technology (2001), “Baldrige National Quality Program 2002:Education Criteria for Performance Excellence”.
17.Opricovic, S. (1998), “Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems”, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
18.Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.. H. (2002a), “Multicriteria Planning of Post-Earthquake Sustainable Reconstruction”, Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(2), pp.211-220.
19.Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G..H. (2002b), “Multicriteria Scheduling in Civil Engineering: An Application of Genetic Algorithm”, The Ninth International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, 4, pp. 3-5, Taipei, Taiwan.
20.Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2003), “The quality assurance agency for higher education”, Gloucester, UK: Author.
21.Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2005), “The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education: An introduction”, Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/qaaIntro/intro.asp
22.Saaty, J.T. (1980), “The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, McGraw-Hill.
23.Saaty, T. L. and Kearns, K. P. (1985), “Analytical Planning”, NY: Pergamum Press Inc.
24.Saaty, Thomas L.,(1990),“How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process” ,European Journal of Operation Research, 48(1), pp. 9-26.
25.Saaty, Thomas L.,(1997),“A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structure” ,Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3 ), pp. 234-281.
26.Shavelson, et al. (1996), “Indicator Systems for Monitoring Mathematics and Science Education”, Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
27.Tzeng, G.H., Tsaur, S.H., Laiw, Y.D. and Opricovic, S. (2002), “Multicriteria analysis of environmental policy in Taipei: public preferences and improvement strategies”, Journal of environmental Management, 64(1), pp. 1-12.
28.Tzeng, G.H., Teng, M.H., Chen, J.J., and Opricovic S. (2002), “Multicriteria Selection for a Restaurant Location in Taipei”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,21(2), pp. 171-187.
29.The Times(2005), “The Times Good University Guide League Table”, Retrieved January 3, 2006,from http://www.thegooduniversityguide.org.uk/league.php.
30.The Times Higher Education Supplement, “The World’s Top 200 Universities, 2004, 2005, 2006”, Retrieved Oct, 6, from http://www.thes.co.uk.
31.UK University Ranking (2001),from
<http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~smazzu/2001_uk_university-ranking.htm>
32.Vargas, Luis G. (1990), “An Overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Applications” , European Journal of Operation Research, 48(1), pp. 2-8.
33.Windham, D.M. (1998), “Effectiveness Indicators in the Economic Analysis of Educational Activities”, International Journal of Education Research, 12, pp. 575-666.
34.Young, K. E. (1983), “Understanding Accreditation”, CA: Jossey-Bass.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top