Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32982
|
| Title: | 台灣地區大學排名指標建構之研究 |
| Authors: | 湯家偉 |
| Contributors: | 吳政達
湯家偉 |
| Keywords: | 大學排名
模糊德菲術
universiy ranking
Fuzzy Delphi |
| Date: | 2005 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-17 15:01:13 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在建構台灣地區大學排名指標，並藉以評估大學辦學品質。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析歸納出大學排名指標之九大構面與六十八項指標，再以專家問卷以及模糊德菲術問卷進行調查。模糊德菲術調查樣本為二十位高等教育學者與行政首長，本研究透過三角模糊數整合專家對指標重要性之看法並篩選指標項目，最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項指標權重，完成台灣大學排名指標體系。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下：
一、本研究建構之台灣地區大學排名指標，含九大構面共29項指標。
指標九大構面依權重高低依序為： 教師素質(12.7%)、學校課程與教學 品質(12.5%)、研究表現(11.7%)、大學聲望(11.6%)、學生素質(11.5%)、
學生與畢業校友表現(11.5%)、學校資源(10.0%)、國際化(9.7%)、校園弱勢關懷(8.8%)。
二、教師素質構面共包含三項指標：具博士學位之專任教師比例(4.4%)、專
任教師中教授所佔比例(4.2%)、專任教師比率(4.1%)
三、學校課程與教學品質構面共包含兩項指標：師生比(6.5%)、大學生對大學課程的評價(6.0%)
四、研究表現構面共包含八項指標：全體教師平均獲得研究獎助數(1.5%)、曾獲國家層級學術獎項之教師比率(1.5%)、具全國性專業學會院士成員身分之教師比例(1.5%)、全體教師在Nature、Science刊物，SCI、SSCI、TSSCI、EI以及A&HCI收錄期刊之論文發表平均數(1.4%)、全體教師在Nature、Science刊物，SCI、SSCI、TSSCI、EI以及A&HCI收錄期刊之論文平均被引用次數(1.5%)、全體教師刊載於國內有外審制度期刊與研討會之論文平均數(1.4%)、全體教師發表於國際研討會之論文平均數(1.5%)、全體教師教師專書出版之平均數(1.4%)
五、大學聲望構面共包含三項指標：國內學術同儕聲望調查(4.0%)、雇主對畢業生之滿意度評價(3.8%)、畢業生對母校評價(3.9%)
六、學生素質構面共包含兩項指標：新生甄選入學接受率(4.9%)、以考試分發入學新生之學科測驗平均成績(6.6%)
七、學生與畢業校友表現構面共包含三項指標：五年內學生贏得全國性學術獎項數(3.7%)、該年度畢業生就業(畢業六個月內覓得全職工作)及繼續唸研究所的比例(4.1%)、學以致用率(3.7%)
八、學校資源構面共包含兩項指標：每生之學校年度經費總額平均(4.8%)、每生平均年度學校圖書設備經費(5.2%)
九、國際化構面共包含三項指標：以華文以外領域為主修之國際學生比率(3.2%)、國際教師比率 (3.0%)、全校國際合作計畫件數(3.5%)
十、校園弱勢關懷構面共包含三項指標：招收弱勢學生(2.8%)、大學生平均在校工讀時數(2.7%)、學校年度經費作為清寒學生補助之比例(3.3%)
最後，本研究依研究結果分別提出以下建議：
一、對高等教育主管機關之建議
二、對進行、發布大學排名者之建議
三、對排名資料使用者之建議
四、對未來研究之建議
The purpose of this study is to construct the Taiwan university ranking indicators which aim to evaluate the education quality of universities. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 68 indicators within 9 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of Taiwan university ranking indicators based on which the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the sample size of 20 higher education experts. Symmetric triangular fuzzy number then was used to analyze experts’ opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At last stage, normalization of fuzzy number’s total score determined the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, the Taiwan university ranking indicator system was constructed. The main conclusions are as follows：
1.The Taiwan university ranking indicator system consists with 9 dimensions and 29 indicators in total. The 9 dimensions are: faculty quality(12.7%), curriculum and teaching(12.5%), research(11.7%),reputation(11.6%), student selectivity(11.5%), performance of students and graduates (11.5%), financial resources(10.0%), internationalization(9.7%), inclusiveness(8.8%).
2.The dimension of faculty quality consists with： percent of full-time faculty with top terminal degree(4.4%), percent of full-time faculty as professor(4.2%), percent of full-time faculty(4.1%)
3.The dimension of curriculum and teaching consists with：staff:student ratio
(6.5%), student evaluation of course(6.0%)
4.The dimension of research consists with：research grants per academic staff member(1.5%), percent of academic staff member with National Faculty Awards(1.5%), percent of academic staff member with Academy membership (1.5%), publications on Nature, Science, SCI, SSCI, TSSCI, EI and A&HCI per academic staff member (1.4%), citations per article on Nature, Science, SCI, SSCI, TSSCI, EI and A&HCI (1.5%), articles in peer-reviewed journals per academic staff member (1.4%), articles in international conferences per academic staff member (1.5%), publications of book per academic staff member(1.4%)
5.The dimension of student selectivity consists with：Acceptance Rate(4.9%), Entry score(6.6%)
6.The dimension of reputation consists with：peer assessment(4.0%), employer assessment(3.8%), graduate assessment(3.9%)
7.The dimension of performance of students and graduates consists with：the success of the student body at winning national academic awards within 5 years(3.7%), graduate employment(4.1%), correspondent (3.7%)
8.The dimension of financial resources consists with：revenue per student(4.8%), library spent per student
9.The dimension of internationalization consists with：percent of international students (excludes those who major in Chinese) (3.2%), percent of international academic staff member (3.0%), international cooperation projects(3.5%)
10.The dimension of internationalization consists with：attract students from underrepresented groups(2.8%), working hours at school per student (2.7%), expense as subvene for the poor students(3.3%)
According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed：
1.suggestions for higher education administrators
2.suggestions for those who are going to conduct university rankings
3.suggestions for university ranking information users
4.suggestions for further study. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
吳政達(2004)。教育政策分析-概念、方法與運用，台北：高等教育文化事業有限公司。
金耀基(2004)。大學之理念，台北：時報文化。
張鈿富(1996)。教育政策分析：理論與實務。台北：五南。
張鈿富(1999)。教育政策與行政--指標發展與應用。台北：師大書苑。
阮亨中、吳柏林（民89）。模糊數學與統計應用。台北：俊傑。
陳揚盛(2003年10月20日)。大專院校學術評比─長庚竄起 政大暴跌。 中國時報，A1版。
曾意芳(1999年5月16日)。超級比一比清大囊括第一名。中央日報，2005年11月5日取自http://www.cdn.com.tw/daily/1999/05/16/text/880516d1.htm
聯合報（2005年1月24日）。高教特別預算 5年500億變10年1200億。2005年11月5日取自http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_ MAIN_ID=
13&f_SUB_ID=33&f_ART_ID=7248
陳洛薇(2005年11月7日)。國內首份世界大學評比出爐 兩岸三地大學 叫台大第一名？。中國時報，A6版。
孟祥傑、李名揚(2004年11月9日) 。泰晤士報世大排名 台大排102。聯合報，C7版。
申慧媛(2005年10月29日)。台大：5年擠入全球百大。2005年11月5日取自
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2005/new/oct/29/today-life5.htm
台灣評鑑學會(2004)。大學校務評鑑規劃與實施計畫：評鑑手冊。2005年11月5日取自http://ua.twaea.org.tw/EventNews/0817_news.doc
台灣評鑑學會(2005)。大學校務評鑑規劃與實施計畫 評鑑結果彙整表。2005年11月5日取自http://ua.twaea.org.tw/EventNews/all.htm
呂美霓 (2002)。大學競爭力指標之分析。暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，，未出版，南投市。
李大正、張麗鵑、蔣東霖(2002)。 大學教育評鑑的實然與應然。2005年11月5日取自http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/23/18.htm
侯永琪(2005)。 我國大學土木.環工.建築三學門聲譽排名之研究。兩岸高等教育改革與發展學術研討會議，淡江大學淡水校園驚聲國際會議廳。
侯永琪、陳樂群 (2003)。以「卡內基高等教育機構分類表」研究我國大專院校之分類。大學院校品質指標建立之理論與實際研討會論文集。臺北：淡水。
徐遐生（2004）。如何建立世界一流研究型大學。2005年11月5日取自http://hotnews.cc.nthu.edu.tw/
留學第一站 (2005)。英國大學本科等級評估體系簡介，2005.12.20。200601.03取自:http://www.globeedu.com/News/readNews.aspx?newsID=35285
高教司(2005a)。大學校務評鑑的特色。高教簡訊，169。2005年11月5日取自 http://www.news.high.edu.tw/monthly169/content03.htm
高教司(2005b)。大學評鑑排名與評等、評分問題說明。高教簡訊，170，6-7。
淡江大學高等教育研究中心籌備處(2002)。我國大學學術聲譽排名之研究:. 以「美國新聞 與世界報導」之指標為分析標準，台北：私立淡江大學。
陳伯璋（2004）。學術資本主義下台灣教育學門學術評鑑制度的省思。學術評鑑的新思考。反思台灣（人文與社會）高教學術評鑑研討會，國家圖書館國際會議廳。
陳伯璋、侯永琪（2004）。我國大學學術聲譽與學門排名研究實施之比較：資料蒐集之檢討與反省。二十一世紀高等教育的挑戰與回應學術研討會。
陳維昭（2004）。台灣是否需要世界一流大學？台大校友雙月刊，32。2005年11月5日，取自http://www.alum.ntu.edu.tw/read.php?num=32&sn=651
彭森明(2005)。臺灣高等教育應如何進一步落實公平化的理念？。教育研究，137，5-15。
楊玉惠(2003)。楊玉惠。「我國大學評鑑實施與制度規劃之探討」。大學院校品質指標建立之理論與實際學術研討會。臺北：淡水。
劉念才(2005)。世界大學學術排名的現狀與未來 。大學評鑑、進退場機制、提升國際競爭力研討會，淡江大學淡水校園驚聲國際會議廳。
蔡麗丹、宋曉平(2004)。英國《泰晤士報》大學排名與《中國大學評價》之比較。石油大學學報，20(4)，103-105。
賴鼎銘（2004）。量化指標並非學術評鑑萬靈丹：以國外幾種代表性的學術評鑑為例。成露茜（主持人），海外及台灣目前學術評鑑的做法說明。反思台灣（人文與社會）高教學術評鑑研討會，國家圖書館國際會議廳。
戴曉霞（2004）。大學評鑑的興起、模式與問題。學術評鑑的新思考。反思台灣（人文與社會）高教學術評鑑研討會，國家圖書館國際會議廳。
瞿海源(n.d.)。「較佳」不是「優異」--媒體報導大學評鑑結果的問題。2005年11月5日取自http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/hyc/doc/formosatoday/htm/formosatoday20050822.htm
張國聖(2003)。大學的社區意識與社會功能—以桃園地區大專院校的發展策略為例。萬能技術學院存廬紀念圖書資訊館館訊，4，13-21。
張鈿富、葉連祺、張奕華(2005)。大學多元入學方案對入學機會之影響。教育政策論壇，8(2)，14-34。
二、英文部分
Altbach,P.G. (2004). The Costs and Benefits of World-Class Universities. International Higher Education, 33, 5-8. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News33/text003.htm
Asia Week. (n.d.). Asia’s Best Universities 2000. Retrieved January 17, 2006, from http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/features/universities2000/schools/multi.overall.html
Beware, B., Page, S., & Cramer, K. (2000). Rankings of Canadian Universities, 2000.
Canadian Journal of Education, 25(2), n/a.
Birchard, K. (2005). Canadian Magazine Ranks Colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(13), 45.
Bradley, G. (2005). New College Rankings Focus on Social Service. Academe, 91(6), 7.
Cave, M., Hanney, S., Henkel, M. & Kogan, M. (1997) The Use of
Performance Indicators in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Dill, D. D. & Soo, M. (2005). Academic qualiy, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, 495-533.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2005). Method or Madness? Inside the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings. Journal of College Admission, 189(29), 7-14.
Good University Guides 2006. (n.d.). The Ratings Explained. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://ratings.thegoodguides.com.au/ratingsExplained.cfm
Guardian. (2005). Education. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,15905,-5163893,00.html
Guarino, C., Ridgeway, G., Chun, M., & Buddin, R. (2005). Higher Education Rankings: Evolution, Acceptance, and Dialogue. Higher Education in Europe,30(2), 147-165.
Hare, P. G. (2003). The United Kingdom`s Research Assessment Exercise: Impact on Institutions, Departments, Individuals. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(2), 43-62.
Ince, M. (2005). Fine-tuning puts picture in much sharper focus. The Times Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://www.thes.co.uk/worldrankings/story.aspx
Johnston, A. D. & Dwyer, M. (2005). University rankings methodology: How the annual Maclean`s survey is compiled. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from http://www.macleans.ca/universities/article.jsp?content=20051114_115647_115647
Kozminski, A. (2002). The Role of Higher Education in Societies in Transition with the Globalized Environment: Solid Acdemic Credentials and the Challenges of Biulding up an Institutional Image. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 365-371.
Leach, J. (2005a). The data: Where it comes from and what it means. Guardian. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/story/0,15904,1460565,00.html
Leach, J. (2005b). Tables: they may be flawed but they`re here to stay. Guardian. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2006/story/0,,1652750,00.html
Leach, J. (2005c). How the tables are compiled. Guardian. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/story/0,15904,14606
14,00.html
Lombardi, J. V., Capaldi E. D., Reeves K. R., and Gater, D. S. (2004) The Top American Research Universities, an annual paper from the Lombardi Program on Measuring University Performance. University of Florida: The Center .
Melbourne Institute. (2004). A Local Assessment of The International Standing of Australian Universities. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.the-funneled-web.com/N&V_2004(jun-Dec)/N&V_0411/news__views_item_november_2004-041124.htm
Merisotis, J. & Sadlak, J. (2005). Higher Education Rankings: Evolution, Acceptance, and Dialogue. Higher Education in Europe,30(2), 97-101.
Research Assessment Exercise 2001. (1999). Assessment panels` Criteria and Working Methods. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from
http://www.research.bham.ac.uk/rae/
Rocki, M. (2005). Statistical and Mathematical Aspects of Ranking:Lessons from Poland. Higher Education in Europe,30(2), 177-181.
Ross, W. & Dyke, N. V. (2004), The International Standing of Australian
Universities. Melbourne Institute. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/publications/reports/aus_uni/
Shanghai Jiao Tong University（2004）. Academic Ranking of World Universities Ranking Methodology. Retrieved January 24, 2006, from
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/Methodology.htm
Shattock, M. (1999). The Impact of the Dearing Report on UK Higher Education, Higher Education Management, 11(1),7-17.
The Center. (2003). Mission. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from
http://thecenter.ufl.edu/mission.html
The German Academic Exchange Service (n.d. a). New Developments. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from
http://www.daad.de/deutschland/studium/hochschulranking/04690.en.html?module=Show&tmpl=e7
The German Academic Exchange Service (n.d. b). Methodology. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from
http://www.daad.de/deutschland/studium/hochschulranking/04690.en.html?module=Show&tmpl=e2
The German Academic Exchange Service (n.d. c). Catalogue of Criteria. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from
http://www.daad.de/deutschland/studium/hochschulranking/04690.en.html?module=Baustein
The Times. (2005). The Times Good University Guide League Table. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://www.thegooduniversityguide.org.uk/league.php
The Washington Monthly. (2005a). The Washington Monthly College Guide. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html
The Washington Monthly. (2005b). A Note on methodology. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.methodology.html
University of Melbourne. (2004). No 1 in Australia, No 22 in the world. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from
http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_1983.html
U. S. News & World Reports. (2005a). Ranking category definitions. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/cornkdfs_brief.php
U. S. News & World Reports. (2005b). America`s Best Colleges 2006: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/cofaq_brief.php
U. S. News & World Reports. (2005c). How U.S. News Collects Data: The Common Data Set. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/cocds_brief.php
U. S. News & World Reports. (2005d). Undergraduate ranking criteria and weights. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/weight_brief.php
U. S. News & World Reports. (2005e). Using the Rankings. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/06rank_brief.ph |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育研究所
93152026
94 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093152026 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
