技術學院績效指標之發展研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2005
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
近年我國技術學院發展快速，其教育品質與績效受到各界的關切。本研究的目的在發展技術學院的績效指標，研訂績效指標的相對權重，提供改進技術學院績效的建議。研究方法包括文獻探討、文件分析、專家座談與問卷調查等質性和量化程序。本研究先彙整國內外九種相關指標，建立績效指標規準篩選出134項指標；提請專家座談，經多次修訂問卷指標架構為三層面10分項68細項。再以其發展成問卷調查全國技術學院校長與教育部評鑑召集委員共110人，問卷內部一致性係數Cronbach α＝0.9819，回收有效問卷80份，回收率72.7%。問卷所得資料除採用描述統計外，並採用t考驗、χ2考驗與因素分析法進行推論統計。統計結果再提請專家座談研討，以加強質性解釋。最後獲得下列四項重要研究結論：（1）技術學院績效指標架構可分學生表現、教學與教師成就、經營管理三層面10分項62細項指標，（2）技術學院績效指標的重要性與學校職類、公私立、地區、評鑑類別之間無顯著相關，（3）指標中可精選出25項關鍵績效指標，（4）關鍵績效指標可重新歸類為資源與成效、制度與檢定、產學交流、教學品質與學生表現五個主成分，並研訂每項指標的相對權重。
With the quick expansion of colleges of technology in Taiwan, the educational quality and achievements among those colleges have become a major concern. The purpose of this research study was to develop weighted performance indicators for those colleges to improve their performance. Methods include literature review, documental analysis, panel discussion, and questionnaire survey through quantitative and qualitative process. This research study filtered 134 performance indicators from nine types with totally 316 items of performance indicators collected from various sources. These 134 indicators were proposed to the panel for in-depth discussions and refinements and were constructed into three dimensions, ten groups, and 68 items. The questionnaires were then sent to 53 individual presidents of these colleges and 57 leading members of the assessment committee of Ministry of Education in Taiwan. Eighty effective questionnaires were returned reaching a 72.7% returning rate with the reliability of Cronbach α＝0.9819. These gathered data were processed through t test, chi-square test, and factor analysis. The results from the statistical measurements were further discussed in the panel to strengthen the quality of the explanation. The research study reached four conclusions : (1) The performance indicators of colleges of technology were divided into three dimensions including student performance, teaching and teacher’s achievements, and school management, and were constructed into tengroups, and 62 items. (2) Different types of colleges in terms of domain, public/private, location, and evaluation categories did not make significant difference in the importance of college performance indicators. (3) 25 key performance indicators were screened out by statistical methods. (4) The key performance indicators were redistributed into five principal components － resources and integration, quality of system implementation, interaction with industries, teaching quality, and student performance. The performance of every college can be obtained from the relative weights of the 25 key performance indicators.
With the quick expansion of colleges of technology in Taiwan, the educational quality and achievements among those colleges have become a major concern. The purpose of this research study was to develop weighted performance indicators for those colleges to improve their performance. Methods include literature review, documental analysis, panel discussion, and questionnaire survey through quantitative and qualitative process. This research study filtered 134 performance indicators from nine types with totally 316 items of performance indicators collected from various sources. These 134 indicators were proposed to the panel for in-depth discussions and refinements and were constructed into three dimensions, ten groups, and 68 items. The questionnaires were then sent to 53 individual presidents of these colleges and 57 leading members of the assessment committee of Ministry of Education in Taiwan. Eighty effective questionnaires were returned reaching a 72.7% returning rate with the reliability of Cronbach α＝0.9819. These gathered data were processed through t test, chi-square test, and factor analysis. The results from the statistical measurements were further discussed in the panel to strengthen the quality of the explanation. The research study reached four conclusions : (1) The performance indicators of colleges of technology were divided into three dimensions including student performance, teaching and teacher’s achievements, and school management, and were constructed into tengroups, and 62 items. (2) Different types of colleges in terms of domain, public/private, location, and evaluation categories did not make significant difference in the importance of college performance indicators. (3) 25 key performance indicators were screened out by statistical methods. (4) The key performance indicators were redistributed into five principal components － resources and integration, quality of system implementation, interaction with industries, teaching quality, and student performance. The performance of every college can be obtained from the relative weights of the 25 key performance indicators.
Description
Keywords
技術學院, 績效指標, 關鍵績效指標, colleges of technology, performance indicator, key performance indicator