台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標之建構

Abstract

台北縣立高級中學學校績效責任指標之建構

摘 要

本研究旨在建構「台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標」內涵，以台北縣立12所高中（完全中學）為研究對象，採用文獻分析、焦點團體訪談，建構學校績效責任指標內容架構，並以「台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標可用性調查問卷」為研究工具，進行問卷調查，根據問卷實際所得資料，分別以次數分配與百分比、平均數、極端值、標準差、Pearson積差相關、因素負荷量以及內部一致性Cronbach α係數等統計方法進行分析，以了解指標之可用性；另以「台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標相對權重調查問卷」為研究工具，採焦點團體訪談方式，進行問卷調查，根據問卷實際所得資料，以層級分析法（Analytic Hierarchy Process）進行分析，以獲得學校績效責任指標相對權重之分配，本研究主要結論有以下三項：

一、台北縣立高中「績效責任指標」，結構上可區分為輸入層面（16.5有三個向度及16項具體指標細目；過程層面（34.1%）有五個向度及30項具體指標細目；輸出層面（49.4%）有四個向度及24項具體指標細目。 二、第二層級指標十二個向度中，經整體指標權重排序的結果，較重要指標分別是教師表現（22.7%）、學生表現（14.9%）、學生學習（14.9%）、教師教學（12.6%）及人力管理（9.4%）。 三、第三層級指標共有70個細目指標，經整體指標權重排序的結果較重要指標分別是專業成長表現（5.3%）、班級經營表現（5.2%）準時到校上課情形（5.0%）、學生參與學校學習程度（5.0%）、提供有效學習情境（4.5%）。

基於學校教育績效責任指標可用性與相對權重之研究結果與討論，本研究分別對教育行政機關提出「提供教育行政機制定學校績效責位政策參考」等五項建議; 對台北縣立高中提出「召開研討會，建立共識」等五項建議; 對進一步研究提出「研究方法可以行動研究進行」等四項建議。

關鍵詞：台北縣立高中、學校績效責任、績效責任指標The Constructing of School Accountability Indicators for Taipei County Senior High Schools Abstract This study is aimed to construct the connotation of School Accountability Indicators for Taipei County Senior High Schools, taking the twelve Taipei County Senior High Schools (Junior-Senior High Schools) as the objects of study, using Documentary Analysis and Focus Group Interview methods to build up the structure of the School Accountability Indicators. At the same time, we use the valid questionnaire of Taipei County Senior High School as some sortof study means to set for this survey. Based on the data from the questionnaire, we use Frequency Allocation, Percentage, Average, Extreme Number, Standard Deviation, Pearson Product-moment Correlation, Factor Loadings, Internal Consistency, Cronbach’s α (alpha), or the other statistical techniques to progress the analysis, and to find out if the indicators are available. Besides, in order to understand the allocation of School Accountability Indicator Relative Importance, we make use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to analyze the data from the questionnaire and find out that: 1. The Accountability Indicators of Taipei County Senior High Schools can be divided into the Input Aspect (16.5%) with three scales and 16 concrete indicator specific items, the Process Aspect (34.1%) with five scales and 30 concrete indicator specific items, the Output Aspect (49.4%) with four scales and 24 concrete indicator specific items. 2. After the re-sorting of the total relative importance of indicators, we can see Teachers’ Performance (22.7%), Students’ Performance (14.9%), Learning of the Students (14.9%), Teaching of the Teachers (12.6%), and Man Management (9.4%) from the twelve scales of the second level are much more important. 3. After the re-sorting of the total relative importance of indicators, we can see Professional Progress (5.3%), Class Management (5.2%), Attendance at School (5.0%), Students’ Involvement in School Learning Activities (5.0%), and Providing Effective Learning Situation (4.5%) from the seventy specific items of the third level are much more important. On account of the usability of School Accountability Indicators and the study results and discussions of the relative importance of the School Accountability Indicators, there are five suggestions (providing reference resources, etc.) for the Educational Administrative Organizations, five suggestions (holding a conference and getting the same point of view, etc.) for Taipei County Senior High Schools, and four suggestions (using Action Research as a research method, etc.) for the further study. Keywords: Taipei County Senior High School, School Accountability, Accountability Indicator