跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.69) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/28 00:01
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:劉秀曦
論文名稱:我國大學品質保證與競爭經費關連性之研究
指導教授:蓋浙生蓋浙生引用關係王保進王保進引用關係
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:教育學系
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:252
中文關鍵詞:大學品質保證競爭經費大學績效指標
外文關鍵詞:higher education quality assurancecompetitive fundinguniversity performance indicators
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:17
  • 點閱點閱:780
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:258
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本研究之主要目的有四:一、瞭解美英台三國大學品質保證機制之發展情形;二、分析美英台三國政府經費分配機制之運作現況;三、探討美英台三國大學品質保證與政府競爭經費之關連性;四、根據文獻探討與實證分析之結果提出結論與建議,以作為政府主管機關經費分配機制改革之參考。
為達成以上研究目的,本研究兼採文獻探討與實證分析,首先就文獻探討而言,又可分為理論基礎與實務探討兩部分。在理論基礎方面,除釐清何謂大學績效責任之品質觀外,並探討政府競爭經費之基本意涵。在實務探討方面,則分別就美國、英國與我國大學品質保證與政府競爭經費之發展與運作現況進行闡述,藉此瞭解我國政府目前競爭經費分配模式所面臨之主要問題。
其次就實證分析而言,共分為三階段,第一階段為我國大學績效指標之建構,係根據文獻探討結果,初擬「我國大學績效指標項目調查問卷」作為德懷術實施之調查工具。第二階段為大學經營績效之分析,係以前述指標系統為基礎,並擇取適當投入與產出項目後,透過資料包絡分析法來瞭解各項獎助計畫中申請學校之經營績效。第三階段為大學經營績效與政府競爭經費關連性之探討,係運用Spearman相關係數分析,探討各大學經營績效相對效率值與政府競爭經費之關連性。
最後,綜合文獻探討與實證分析之結果,獲得以下結論:一、品質保證與競爭經費之連結,可讓大學機構透過競爭機制提高教育品質;二、品質保證與競爭經費之連結,可讓政府競爭經費之分配具有較合理基礎;三、品質保證與競爭經費之連結,可能造成大學強者愈強,弱者愈弱,進而強化大學階層化後果並抑制大學教學與研究創新。
This study has four purposes: 1. to inquire into the development of higher education quality assurance in Taiwan. 2. to analyze the distribution of competitive funding in Taiwan. 3. to clarify the relationship between higher education quality assurance and competitive funding in Taiwan. And 4. based on the results, to make recommendation to the policy-makers in making university subsidizing policy in the future.
In order to achieve the above-stated purposes, this study adopted the methods of literature analysis and practical analysis. First, through documentary analysis, the study elucidates the primary concepts of quality assurance and competitive funding and their practice. Second, according to the results drawn from the literature, the researcher developed “Questionnaire on performance indicators for universities in Taiwan” as the tool to collect the opinions of experts. To ensure the data accuracy, the items of input and output are carefully assessed and selected. The models of evaluation are then determined by using empirical DEA analysis. Based on the collected data, the study then proceeds with efficiency analysis and reference set analysis.
Finally, the following results were reached:
1. Both the quality assurance and funding allocation are the important policy instruments of government.
2. Performance-based funding is a realization of Hefficiency doctrineH.
3. Performance-based funding is still lower percentage in Educational Budget.
4. The Linkage Between quality assurance and funding allocation is diverse.
5. The Linkage Between quality assurance and funding allocation should be indirect and flexible.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 4
第三節 論文架構與研究方法 4
第四節 重要名詞釋義 8
第二章 理論基礎 11
第一節 大學品質保證之意涵 12
第二節 政府競爭經費之意涵 35
第三章 實務探討 57
第一節 美國大學品質保證與政府經費分配機制 58
第二節 英國大學品質保證與政府經費分配機制 86
第三節 我國大學品質保證與政府經費分配機制 113
第四節 綜合討論 148
第四章 研究設計與實施 163
第一節 研究設計與流程 163
第二節 績效指標之建構與操作型定義 165
第三節 經營績效之評估與研究對象 170
第四節 資料分析方法 176
第五章 研究結果與討論 181
第一節 我國大學績效指標之建構 181
第二節 我國大學經營績效之評估 197
第三節 我國大學經營績效與政府競爭經費關連性之分析 217
第四節 綜合討論 225
第六章 結論與建議 229
第一節 結論 229
第二節 建議 236
參考書目 239
壹、中文部份
丁志權(1999)。中美英三國教育經費財源與分配制度之比較研究。台北市:師大書苑。
中央社(2008)。子化趨勢明顯 高等教育招生問題愈趨嚴重。2008年9月18日,取自http://news.sina.com.tw/article/20080818/721283.html
王如哲(1999)。比較教育。台北市:五南。
王如哲(2002)。知識經濟與教育。台北市:五南。
王如哲(2005)。高等教育品質管理機制之國際經驗。台灣教育,632,21-29。
王保進(2003)。高等教育品質的理念與實際。台灣教育,619,38-49。
王保進(2004)。國家層級大學教育指標系統建構之研究。初等教育學刊,18,25-50。
王保進(2006a)。從波隆那到柏根:歐盟高等教育區域(EHEA)發展與變革之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC95-2413-H133-001)。台北市:台北市立師範學院初等教育系。
王保進(2006b)。以品質保證為目標的美國高等教育認可制度。評鑑雙月刊,2:48-49。
王淑娟(2004)。世界高教品質保障三大模式及未來趨勢。2008年3月17日,取自http://www.zju.edu.cn/zdxw/jd/read.php?
丘昌泰(2003)。政策執行與評估。台北市:元照。
台灣評鑑協會(2005)。大學校務評鑑資訊網。2006年7月18日,取自http://ua.twaea.org.tw/intro/intro1.htm
何卓飛(2008a)。從認可評鑑走向品質保證。評鑑雙月刊,16,9-12。
何卓飛(2008b)。高等教育的過去與未來。高教技職簡訊,14,2008年5月23日,取自http://www.news.high.edu.tw/news014/2008012802.asp?c=0100&vers=014
吳清山、黃美芳和徐緯平(2002)。教育績效責任研究。台北市:高等教育。
呂煒等(2004)。高等教育財政:國際經驗與中國道路選擇。東北財經大學出版社。
周祝瑛(2000)。他山之石-比較教育專題研究。台北:文景。
林子儀(1992)。美國學術自由法制之研究。教育部委託專案研究報告。
林文達(1986)。教育財政學。台北市:三民。
林文達(1991)。教育經濟學。台北市:三民書局。
林生傳(2006)。教育研究法:全方位的統整與分析。台北市:心理。
林郡妙(2006)。台灣的一流大學夢何時能實現?卓越雜誌,257。2008年1月17日,取自http://www.ecf.com.tw/OldMg_Detail.php?om_id=97
施能傑(1999)。美國政府人事管理。台北市:商鼎。
孫遜(2004)。資料包絡分析法:理論與應用。台北市:揚智。
馬信行(1990)。論教育評鑑標之選擇。現代教育,19,39-54。
馬信行(1997)。大學評鑑指標適切性之評析。載於陳漢強(主編),大學評鑑(頁101-160)。台北市:五南。
高等教育評鑑中心(2006a)。95年度大學校院系所評鑑實施計畫。2008年6月20日,取自http://www.heeact.org.tw/
高等教育評鑑中心(2006b)。重視個別差異與自我改進機制:系所評鑑五年計畫正式啟動。評鑑雙月刊,創刊號,11-14。
高等教育評鑑中心(2007)。解讀95年度系所評鑑結果。評鑑雙月刊,8,11-17。
高等教育評鑑中心(2008a)。中心簡介—歷史沿革。2008年6月20日,取自http://www.heeact.org.tw/
高等教育評鑑中心(2008b)。96年度上半年系所評鑑結果公布。評鑑雙月刊,11,7-10。
高等教育評鑑中心(2008c)。96年度下半年系所評鑑結果公布。評鑑雙月刊,14,7-11。
國立教育資料館(1998)。中華民國教育年報。台北:編者。
教育部(2002)。目前大學校院整合趨勢與推動研究型大學現況專案報告。台北市:作者。
教育部(2004a)。中華民國教育統計指標。台北市:作者。
教育部(2004b)。中華民國教育統計。台北市:作者。
教育部(2005)。發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫。2007 年10 月27 日,取自http://epaper.edu.tw/highedu/index.html
教育部(2008a)。發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫。2008年3月15日,取自http://www.edu.tw/HIGH/itemize.aspx?itemize_sn=3520&pages=1&site_content_sn=1234
教育部(2008b)。教育部獎勵大學教學卓越計畫。2008年10月1日,取自http://www.csal.fcu.edu.tw/Edu/program_HotNewsShow.asp?Nno=102
教育部高教司(2004)。大學校務評鑑實施計畫。2007年4月13日,取自http://ua.twaea.org.tw/
教育部高教司(2005)。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫94年度計畫作業手冊。2008年2 月29 日,取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/HIGH/EDU5128001/teaching%20describe.doc
教育部高教司(2006a)。教育部私立大學校院整體發展獎助及補助作業—96年度作業手冊。中壢市:中原大學。
教育部高教司(2006b)。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫95 年度計畫作業手冊。2007年3月29 日,取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/HIGH/EDU5128001/teaching%20plan%20describe.doc
教育部高教司(2008)。97年度教育部獎勵私立大學校院校務發展計畫要點暨相關規定手冊。台北市:編者。
教育部統計處(2008)。重要教育統計資訊。2008年10月3日,取自http://140.111.34.54/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=8956
許士軍(2000)。走向創新時代的組織績效評估。載於高翠霜譯績效評估。台北市:天下文化。
許添明(2003)。教育財政制度新論。台北市:高等教育。
許添明(2008)。教育財政資料庫與網站之建置及其相關議題探討(I)(Ⅱ)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC97-2410-H003- 010)。台北市:國立台灣師範大學教育學系。
郭昭佑(2007)。教育評鑑研究:原罪與解放。台北市:五南。
陳春宏(2000)。公私立大專院校預算分配模式研究。台北:行政院人事行政局。
陳舜芬(1993)。高等教育研究論文集。台北:師大書苑。
陳麗珠(2000)。我國教育財政改革之研究(Ⅲ)高等教育財政改革。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC89-2413-H017-009)。高雄市:高雄師範大學教育系。
彭森明(2005)。台灣高等教育資料庫之建置及相關議題之探討(I)(Ⅱ)(III)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC94-2413-H003-061)。台北市:國立台灣師範大學教育學系。
湯梅英(1992)。從績效責任談大學評鑑。現代教育,7(3),48-61。
湯堯、成群豪(2004)。高等教育經營。台北市:高等教育。
黃政傑(2001)。大學教育改革。台北:師大書苑。
黃雯玲(1995)。大學財務經營與管理。台北:行政院。
楊玉惠(2003,3月)。我國大學評鑑實施與制度規劃之探討。論文發表於淡江大學高等教育研究中心主辦,大學院校品質指標建立之理論與實際」學術研討會。淡水:淡江大學。
楊國賜(2003)。提升大學教育品質,增進國際競爭力。教育資料與研究,54,75-86。
楊朝祥(2001)。預應加入WTO對高等教育之衝擊。2005年10月3日,取自http://www.npf.org.tw/
楊瑩(2006)。我國大學評鑑制度實施之探討。載於黃乃熒(主編),教育政策科學與實務(頁231-281)。台北:心理出版社。
楊瑩(2009)。英國高等教育品質保證制度之運作與實施現況。評鑑雙月刊,17,49-53。
詹火生、楊瑩(1992)。英國學術自由之研究。台北市:教育部委託專案研究計畫報告。
預算中心(2008)。國立大學校院校務基金97年度預算整體評估報告。台北市:立法院。
蓋浙生(1999)。教育財政與教育發展。台北市:師大書苑。
蓋浙生(2002)。教育經營與管理。台北市:師大書苑。
劉維琪(2008)。管制干預或市場機制?從認可評鑑談大學招生政策。評鑑雙月刊,14,4-5。
鄭瑞城(2008)。退場機制改走緩進微調政策—專訪教育部長鄭瑞城。評鑑雙月刊,15,1-3。
戴曉霞(1999)。國家、市場與高等教育:英國和美國之比較研究。載於第二屆台灣教育社會學論壇會議手冊暨論文集(頁119-143)。台北市:國立台灣師範大學。
戴曉霞(2000)。高等教育的大眾化與市場化。台北市:揚智。
簡茂發和李琪明(2001)。教育指標系統整合型研究。台北市:師大。
蘇錦麗(1997)。高等教育評鑑理論與實際。台北市:五南。
蘇錦麗譯(2003)。自主與績效責任—誰控制學界?載於陳舜芬(主編),21世紀美國高等教育—社會、政治、經濟的挑戰(頁81-100)。台北市:高等教育。

貳、英文部份
Ashworth, A. & Harvey, R. (1994). Assessing Quality in Further and Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Atkinson-Grosjean, J. & Grosjean, G. (2000). The Use of Performance Models in Higher Education: A Comparative International Review. Retrieved September 25, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n30.html
Bauer & Henkel (1999). Academic Responses to Quality Reforms in Higher Education: England and Sweden Compared. In Henkel, M. & Little, B. (eds.), Changing Relationships Between Higher Education and the State. London ; Philadelphia : J. Kingsley Publishers.
Becher, T. & Kogan, M.(1992). Process and structure in higher education, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Berne & Stiefel (1999). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to the present. In Ladd, H. F., Chalk, R. & Hansen, J. S. (eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
Bogue, E. G. & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and Accountability in Higher Education: Improving Policy, Enhancing Performance. London: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Borden, V. & Bottrill, K. V. (1994). Performance Indicators: History, Definitions, and Methods. In Borden, V. & Banta, T. W. (eds.), Using Performance Indicators to Guide Strategic Decision Making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Borden, V. (2003, March). Developing Credible Performance Indicators for Accountability and, More Importantly, Improvement: The IUPUI Experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Public Administration’s Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance. Washington, D.C.
Borden, V. M. & Banta, T. W. (1994). Using performance indicators to guide strategic decision making. New directions for instritutional research, 82. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brennan, J. (1999) Evaluation of Higher Education in Europe. In M. Henkel & B. Little (eds.), Changing Relationships Between Higher Education and the State ( pp. 219-235). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. (2001). Linking State Resources to Campus Results: From Fad to Trend --The Fifth Annual Survey. New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. (2002a). Reporting indicators: What do they indicate? New Directions for Institutional Research, 116, 33-58.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. (2002b). Measuring Down and Up: The Missing Link. New Directions for Institutional Research, 116, 97-113.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. (2003). Performance Reporting: “Real” Accountability or Accountability “Lite” --The Seventh Annual Survey. New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
Burke, J. C. & Serban, A. M. (Eds.). (1998). Performance Funding for Public Higher Education: Fad or Trend? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J. C. (1998). Performance Funding Indicators: Concerns, Values, and Models for State Colleges and Universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, 97, 49-60.
Burke, Joseph C. (2005). Reinventing Accountility: From Bureaucratic Rules to Performance Results. In Joseph C. Burke and Associates (Ed.), Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands(pp.216-245). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cave, M., Hanney, S. & Kogan, M. (1991). The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice, 2nd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Cave, M., Hanney, S. & Kogan, M. (1997). The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: The challenge of the quality movement, 3rd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Chalmers, D., Lee, K. & Walker, B. (2008). International and national quality teaching and learning performance model current in use. Australia: Center for the advancement of teaching and learning.
CHEA(2001). Glossary of Key Terms in Quality Assurance and Accreditation. Retrieved June 19, 2007 from http://www.chea.org/international/inter_glossary01.html
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system : academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Cuttance, P. (1994). Quality assurance in education systems. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 99-112.
Deaton, R. (2004). The funding formula as a higher education policy tool in Tennesee.
Dill, D. D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10(3/4), 167-185.
Eaton, J. S. (2006). An Overview of U.S. Accreditation. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
El-Khawas, E. & Massy, F. M. (1996). Britain’s Performance-Based System. In William F. Massy (ed.) Resource Allocation in Higher Education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp.223-242.
ENQA (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Finland: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
ENQA (2008). ENQA history. Retrieved November 11, 2008 from http://www.enqa.eu/history.lasso
EUA (2005). Glasgow Declaration. Retrieved October 19, 2005 from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Glasgow_Declaration.1114612714258.pdf
Ewell, P. T. & Jones, D. P. (1996). Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Education. Colorado: National Centre for Higher Education Management Systems.
Ewell, P. T. (1999). Linking Performance Measures to Resource Allocation: Exploring Unmapped Terrain. Quality in Higher Education, 5(3), 191-209.
Green, D. (1994). What is Quality in Higher Education? Buckingham; Bristol, PA, USA : Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Gronlund, N. E. & Linn, R. L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching(6th). London : Macmillan : Collier Macmillan,
Hancock, C. (2007). Higher Education Accountability: 21st Century Challenges and Prospects for England. 發表於財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會舉辦之「2007高等教育績效責任」國際學術研討會,台北市。
Harris, J. (1998). Performance Models: Enhancing accountability in academe. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(2), 135-140.
Hauptman, A. M. (1997).Financing American higher education in 1990s. In Daniel T. Layzell (ed.), Forecasting and managing enrollment and revenue: An overview of current trends, issues, and methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp.19-35.
HEFCE (2000). Funding higher education in England-How the HEFCE allocates its funds. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2003a). Performance indicators in higher education in the UK. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2003b). Review of research assessment. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2004). Teaching quality enhancement: additional funding. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2005a). Higher education in the United Kingdom. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2005b). Funding higher education in England: How the HEFCE allocates its funds. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2005c). Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2006). Funding higher education in England.: How Hefce allocates its funds. England: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2007). Funding higher education in England: How the HEFCE allocates its funds. England: HEFCE.
HERO (2001). A Guide to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise. Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/other/raeguide.pdf
HESA (2002). Higher education statistics. Higher Education Statistics Agency. Retrieved October 31, 2005 from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/
HESA (2005). Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK 2003/04. Retrieved October 30, 2005 from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/pi/0304/home.htm
HESA (2007). Higher education statistics. Higher Education Statistics Agency. Retrieved July 14, 2008 from http://www.hesa.ac.uk/
Jobgbloed, B. & Westerheijden, D. F. (1994). Performance indicators and Quality Assessment in European Higher Education. In Borden, V. & Banta, T. W. (eds.), Using Performance Indicators to Guide Strategic Decision Making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Johnes, J. & Taylor, J. (1990). Performance indicators in higher education. Guildford, UK: Open University Press.
Johnstone, D. B. (1998) The Financing and Management of Higher Education. Retrieved August 19, 2005 from http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/educ/postbasc.htm
Jongbloed, B. & Salerno, C. (2002). Funding and recognition. A comparative study of funded versus non-funded higher education in eight countries. Ministry of Education & SDU, The Hague.
Jongbloed, B. & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up Performances: an international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), 127-145.
Jongbloed, B. (2004). Funding higher education: options, trade-offs and dilemmas. Retrieved January 22, 2008 from http://www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/engpap04fundinghe.pdf
Kaiser, F. Vossensteyn, H., & Koelman, J. (2001). Public funding of higher education. A comparative study of funding mechanisms in ten countries. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Kaiser, F. Vossensteyn, H., & Koelman, J. (2001). Public funding of higher education. A comparative study of funding mechanisms in ten countries. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Kells, H. R. (Ed.) (1993). The Development of Performance Indicators for Higher Education, 2nd. Paris:Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Kogan, M. & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Press.
Layzell, D. T. (1998). Linking Performance to Funding Outcomes for Public Institutions of Higher Education: the US experience. European Journal of Education, 33(1), 103-111.
Layzell, D. T. (1999). Linking Performance to Funding Outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: past, present, and future. Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 233-246.
Leišytė, L. (2007). Higher Education in the United Kingdom. The Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Levy, D. C. (1986). Alternative private-public blends in higher education finance: International patterns. In Daniel C. Levy (ed.), Private education: Studies in choice & public policy .N. Y.: Oxford University Press. pp.195-213.
Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46(4), 469-489.
Lowe, M. (1996). Higher education institutions:Their mission, their role as independent non-profit organizations and their legislative framework for funding purposes. higher education management, 8(1), pp.133-139.
Mackinnon, D. & Stacham, J. (1999). Education in the UK: Facts & figures. London: Open University Press.
Massy, F. M. (1996). Resource allocation in higher education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
McDaniel, O. (1996). The Theoretical and Practical Use of Performance Indicators. Higher Education Management, 8(3), 125-139。
Meek, L. (2002). Changing Patterns in Modes of Co-ordination of Higher Education, in J. Enders, O. Fulton (eds.) Higher Education in a Globalising World— International Trends and Mutual Observations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.53-71.
Morley, L. (2003). Quality and power in higher education. Philadelphia, PA : Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Morse, R. J. (2008). 美國大學排名角色衍生的爭論。評鑑雙月刊,13,14-16。
NCES (2005). Digest of Education Statistics, 2004. Retrieved June 9, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005025.pdf
NCES (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006030_3b.pdf
NCES (2007). Digest of Education Statistics, 2006. Retrieved December 22, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007017.pdf
NCES (2008). Digest of Education Statistics, 2007. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf
NCIHE (1997). Dearing Report. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
Noland, B. (2006). Changing Perceptions and Outcomes: The Accountability Paradox in Tennessee. New Directions for Higher Education, 135, 59-67.
Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide for policymakers. New Jersey: Center for Policy Research in Educaiton.
OECD (2006). Education at a Glance 2006. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Orr, Dominic (2005). Can Performance-Based Funding and Quality Assurance Solve the State vs. Market Conundrum? Higher Education Policy, 18, 31-50.
Peters, B. G. (1989). The politics of bureaucracy. New York: Longman.
PISG (1999). Performance Indicators in higher education, first report. Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Popham, W. J. (1975). Educational evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Pugh, G., Coates, G. & Adnett, N. (2005). Performance Indicators and Widening Participation in UK Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(1), 19-39.
QAA (2005). Higher Quality: Bulletin of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Radford, J. Raaheim, K. de Vries, P., & Williams, R. (1997). Quantity and quality in higher education. London ; Bristol, Pa. : J. Kingsley Publishers.
RAE (2005). RAE 2008: Guidance on submissions. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/
Rhoda, R. G. (2001). Measuring Performance in Higher Education. Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
Rochford, F. (2001). Issue of university governance and management giving rise to legal liability. Journal of higher education policy and management, 23(1). pp. 49-61.
Rosalind, L., Ross, K., Caldwell, B. & Odden, A. (2000). Funding Schools by Formula: Comparing Practice in Five Countries. Journal of Education Finance, 25(4), 489-515.
Salmi, J. & Hauptman, A. M. (2006). Higher Education in the World 2006: The Financing of Universities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sandbach, J. & Thomas, H. (1996). Sources of funds and resource allocation. In D. Warner, & D. Palfreyman, (eds.) , Higher education management: The key elements. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
SC Commission on Higher Education (2004). Performance Funding Workbook: A Guide to South Carolina’s Performance Funding System for Public Higher Education. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.che.sc.gov
Scheerens, J. (1991). Process indicators of school functioning: A selection based on the research literature on school effectiveness. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 17, 371-403.
SCHEF (2000). News Release. Retrieved November 13, 2005 from http://www.schev.edu/schevs/pressreleases/pr-nov2000/nr112100.pdf?from=k12
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2000). Technical Guide: Documenting Methodology, Indicators and Data Sources For Measuring Up 2000. Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2000/techguide2.htm
THEC (2008). Performance Funding . Retrieved October 18, 2008 from http://state.tn.us/thec/2004web/division_pages/academic_pages/performance_funding/performancefunding.html
Trinczek, R. & West, A. (1999). Using Statistics and Indicators to Evaluate Universities in Europe: aims, fields, problems and recommendations. European Journal of Education, 34(3), 343-356.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
UNESCO (2000). Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise. Paris.
UNESCO (2001). Accountability and International Co-operation in the Renewal of Higher Education. Paris.
Universities UK (2008). Higher Education in Facts and Figures. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/Stats2008.pdf
Van Vught, F. (1994). Western Europe and North American. In A. Craft (Eds.), International developments in assuring quality in higher education (pp.3-17). London: The Falmer Press.
Vidovich, L., Fourie, M., Louis van der Westhuizen, Alt, H., & Holtzhausen, S. (2000). Quality teaching and learning in Australian and South African universities: Comparing policies and practices. Compare, 30(2), 193-211.
Vlãsceanu, L., Grünberg, L. & Pârlea, D. (2004). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic terms and definitions. Papers on Higher Education. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Wang, R. J.(1997). Changing patterns of finance in higher education in Taiwan. In proceedings , part c : Humanities and social sciences, 7(1), the National Science Council, R.O.C.
Watt, C., Lancaster, C., Gilbert, J. & Higerd, T. (2004). Performance Funding and Quality Enhancement at Three Research Universities in the United States. Tertiary Education and Management 10, 61-72.
West, P. (1996). Funding universities: The management challenge. Higher Education Management, 8(1), 125-131.
Williams, G. (1992). Changing patterns of finance in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wirt, F. M. & Kirst, M. W. (1997). The political dynamics of American education. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Woodhouse, D. (2007). 績效責任八大有效機制—Dr. Woodhouse談績效責任模式。評鑑雙月刊,8,45-47。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top