本研究旨在建構學校核心競爭力指標體系，以技專校院為研究主體，運用文獻分析、德懷術、訪談及問卷調查等4種研究方法進行探究。研究者首先蒐集核心競爭力、學校競爭力、學校核心競爭力、教育指標、技專校院的現況與發展等相關資料，透過文獻分析，初步建構學校核心競爭力指標體系草案後，再經由18位德懷術專家學者3次問卷往返的協助修正，最後建立技專校院適用之學校核心競爭力指標體系。研究過程中，另與6位專家學者進行深度訪談，瞭解技專校院現場實務工作者對研究問題之看法與建議，協助取得較完整的調查研究資料；最後，針對全國科技大學、技術學院與專科學校等93校，寄發465份指標認同程度調查問卷，以立意樣本進行教師意見調查，回收之有效問卷340份，回收率為73％。 根據文獻分析、德懷術專家問卷、訪談及技專校院教師問卷調查結果，經過整理及分析之後，本研究獲致之以下結論： 一、核心競爭力是多種類型能力所組成。 二、學校核心競爭力特徵具有獨特性、價值性、整合性、動態性、延展性、過程性與核心性。 三、學校核心競爭力是學校永續經營的重要根基。 四、學校核心競爭力探討的學校層級著重在高等教育領域。 五、技專校院正面臨再造發展的關鍵期。 六、本研究建構技專校院適用之學校核心競爭力指標體系，包括「科研核心競爭力」、「師資核心競爭力」、「學生核心競爭力」、「學校表現核心競爭力」等四構面，合計79項指標。 七、德懷術專家對於「科研核心競爭力」與「師資核心競爭力」層級各指標評價之共識程度，高於「學生核心競爭力」與「學校表現核心競爭力」層級各指標。 八、受訪談者肯定技專校院具有重要的價值與功能。 九、受訪談者對於提升技專校院核心競爭力的策略，認為應從「師資水準」、「學生能力」、「政府政策」、「學校經營策略」與「合作策略聯 盟」等層面推進。 十、技專校院教師對於「學校表現核心競爭力」層級各指標之認同程度較高，對於「科研核心競爭力」層級各指標之認同程度較低。 十一、技專校院教師對於本研究建構之指標評價，受不同性別、年齡等變項的影響較不顯著，受不同學校型態（科技大學、技術學院、專科學校）的影響較顯著。 十二、技專校院教師背景變項對於編號「A-2科研價值性」、「A-2-4技術移轉件數」、「B-1-2具有博士學位教師數」指標認同程度之影響較顯著，對於編號「C-1-1取得專業證照學生數」、「C-1-2通過專技檢定學生數」、「C-3-3學生公共服務表現」、「D-2-3學校建築物樓地板面積」指標認同程度無顯著影響。 根據上述研究結論，本研究分別提出對主管教育行政機關、技專校院與未來研究建議如下： 一、對主管教育行政機關之建議 （一）重視與應用技專校院之學校核心競爭力指標，並將指標納入技專校院資訊資料庫。 （二）強化技職教育的定位與功能，鼓勵技專校院發展學校優勢特色，協助技專校院增進核心競爭能量。 （三）積極協助競爭力較弱的技專校院，助益學校改善經營體質，建立妥適之技專校院進退場機制，激勵學校再造與整併。 （四）成立學校核心競爭力中心，協助技專校院進行核心競爭力評核，接軌國際教育核心競爭力潮流，辦理學校核心競爭力論壇與研習。 二、對技專校院之建議 （一）強化科學、技術、實務與應用整合的學校核心競爭力，發展技專校院「專業、專才、專項、專精、專攻」的五大核心競爭策略。 （二）建立師資領先的競爭態勢，積極改善師資的品質與結構，增進教師實務經驗與交流，鼓勵教師與業界產學合作。 （三）提升學生的多元競爭能力，協助學生取得專業證照，強化學生實用的專業技能，鼓勵學生參與專業競賽。 （四）以學校永續經營為本，資源有效運用為宗，積極展現優質學校的品牌形象，豎立學校不畏競爭的強勢地位。 三、對未來研究之建議 （一）增加研究對象人數，更採樣本抽樣方式，以使研究立論更為客觀，並擴大研究推論範圍。 （二）採用更多元的指標建構方法，以增進指標研究的適切與實效。 （三）針對不同的學校性質，建構分類的學校核心競爭力指標。 / This research aims to establish a system of school core competitiveness indicators with vocational and technical institute as examples, utilizing methodologies such as literature review, Delphi technique, interviews and questionnaire survey to conduct the research. The research first collects relevant development and information related to core competitiveness, school competitiveness, school core competitiveness and educational indicator of vocational and technical institutes. Consequently through initial establishment of school core competitiveness and subsequent collaboration with 18 Delphi technique experts, a school core competitiveness system suited for vocational and technical institutes are established. Through the process of the research, six other experts are interviewed to provide suggestions of practical understanding to researchers and assist in acquiring a more accurate research data. Finally, 465 indicator acceptance questionnaires are sent to 93 technological universities, technical and vocational institutes and purposive samples were utilized to investigate teacher opinions. 340 questionnaires were returned, giving an effective response rate of 73%. According to literature review, Delphi experts’ questionnaire surveys, interviews and teacher opinions surveys of vocational and technical institutes, the research reaches the following conclusions after integration and analysis: 1. Core competitiveness is composed of several types of abilities. 2. Characteristics of school core competitiveness include uniqueness, value, integration, mobility, extendibility, process and core. 3. School core competitiveness is the fundamental of sustainable management. 4. Discussion of school core competitiveness is focused on higher education sector. 5. Vocational and technical institutes are facing the critical phase of re-engineering. 6. There are 79 indicators in the process of building school core competitiveness system and they include: “R&D core competitiveness”, “teaching staff core competitiveness”, “students’ core competitiveness” and “school performance core competitiveness”. 7. Delphi experts have higher consensus and appraisal regarding “R&D core competitiveness” and “teaching staff core competitiveness” compared to “students core competitiveness” and “school performance core competitiveness”. 8. The interviewees have high affirmation regarding the function and value of vocational and technical institutes. 9. The interviewees thought effective strategies to promote core competitiveness of vocational and technical institutes include raising “teaching staff level”, “students’ abilities”, “government policies”, “school management strategies” and “strategic alliances”. 10. Teaching staff of vocational and technical institutes have overall higher approval level concerning “school performance core competitiveness” than “R&D core competitiveness”. 11. Evaluations of indicators established in this research are affected mainly by school types (technological university, technical institutes, and vocational schools) rather than gender or age group. 12. Variables of teaching staff of vocational and technical institutes have significant differences with respect to “A-2 R&D value”, “A-2-4 Number of technology transfers” and “B-1-2 Qualified Ph.D. teaching staff”, and less significant differences with respect to “C-1-1 Number of students with qualifications”, “C-1-2 Number of students who passed technical examinations”, “C-3-3- Students’ public service performance” and “D-2-3 Area of school buildings”. According to the above research conclusions, this research proposes the following relevant suggestions for education administration authority, the educational institutes and future research: 1. Suggestions for education administration authority (1) Place emphasis and employ practical application of the school core competitiveness indicators of vocational and technical institutes, and incorporate those data into school database. (2) Strengthen positioning and functions of vocational and technical institutes, develop their unique competitiveness and core competitiveness ability. (3) Actively assist weaker vocational and technical institutes to improve their management and establish appropriate exit strategies to encourage school re-engineering and consolidation. (4) Establish center for school core competitiveness to assist assessment of core competitiveness of vocational and technical institutes, follow international educational core competitiveness trend and host forums and research on school core competitiveness. 2. Suggestions to vocational and technical institutes (1) Strengthen scientific, technical, practical and integrative core competitiveness of schools to develop the five core competitiveness: professional, talented, training, expertise and specialty. (2) Establish teaching staff competitiveness edge by actively improving teaching staff quality and structure; promote practical experience sharing and encourage involvement with the industry. (3) Increase students’ multi-faceted competitiveness by assisting students in receiving their professional certifications, enhancing their practical skills and encouraging them to participate in professional competitions. (4) With sustainable management as key principle and effective utilization of resources as model, actively exhibit a positive image of quality education and strong competitive edge. 3. Directions for future research (1) Increase number of research targets and employ random sampling to make research conclusion more objective and have wider inference aspect. (2) Establish more multi-faceted indicators to enhance research appropriateness and effectiveness. (3) Establish different types of school core competitiveness for different types of schools.

本研究旨在利用「模糊相似性整合法」與「模糊層級分析法」，針對美國馬康包立茲國家品質獎的評審標準與國內學校行政管理專家的意見，建構高級中學全面品質教育的指標，並運用所建構的指標，對北區公私立高中的內部顧客--教師與學生，進行指標重要程度與學校實施情形的評量，進而探討學校推行全面品質教育的需求與期望。 　　本研究以參與北區公、私立高中聯招的學校為研究對象，抽取270位教師，1089位學生；以18位學校行政管理專家所建構的「高級中學全面品質教育指標評量表」為研究工具，進行指標重要程度與實施情形的評量與比較；資料分析的方式包括：專家判斷指標的模糊相似性整合法，模糊層級分析法，Cronbach α信度分析，單因子變異數分析，單因子多變量變異數分析，重複量數變異數分析與Scheffe's多重比較法。 　　本研究的主要結果臚列於下： 　　（一）專家在建構全面品質教育指標的過程中，彼此之間的共識程度不完全一致，共識程度較低的專家可以就其個案重新進行第二次評估。 　　（二）模糊相似性整合較傳統整合不易受到極端值的影響，尤其在專家之間的共識變異情形較大時，模糊相似性整合法更能求得團體的共識。 　　（三）模糊層級分析較傳統分析，更能讓專家表達主觀模糊且不明確的概念，並可以將複雜的問題予以單純化。 　　（四）模糊層級分析可以精確地瞭解專家的判斷是否一致，以及一致的程度。若一致性較低或不一致時，則必須重新進行第二次評估。 　　（四）在指標重要程度方面：「領導」與「顧客滿意度」的重要程度最高。此外，教師高於學生，公立學校的部份項目高於私立學校；高、中排名學校高於低排名學校。 　　（五）學校質施情形方面：「領導」的質施情形最好。此外，公立學校的質施情形高於私立學校；低排名學校的實施情形高於高排名學校。 　　（六）在指標重要程度與學校實施情形的必較方面：指標重要程度高於學校質施情形，屬於第三類型差異；私立學校的差異情形高於公立學校；高排名學校的差異情形高於低排名學校，中排名學校則部份項目高於低排名學校。 　　最後，本研究根據上述結果加以討論，並針對學校、教育行政單位與未來研究方向提出具體建議，以便做為未來推行全面品質教育的參考。

影響學生學業成就因素，是值得關注的議題。本研究欲瞭解教育指標和家庭資本對學生學業成就之間的影響關係，以臺灣、日本、韓國、美國和義大利五個國家已公佈的教育指標資料和TIMSS 2007資料庫問卷調查結果的24383份追蹤樣本，進行現況分析、變異數分析、相關分析、多元逐步回歸分析、結構方程式分析，結果發現： 一、教育指標中，在學率和數學及科學學業成就為正相關。中等教育師生比、識字率、教育經費占國民所得比與數學及科學學業成就為負相關。 二、教育指標對數學學業成就的解釋變異量為25%，對科學學業成就的解釋變異量為9.7%。 三、家中藏書量和學習資源對數學及科學學業成就的變異數分析中可得知擁有越多藏書和資源的組別大於擁有較少藏書和資源的組別。 四、父母親學歷對數學及科學學業成就的變異數分析中可得知美國在此分析中未達顯著，臺灣、日本、韓國和義大利都是學歷越高的組別大於學歷低的組別。 五、自我期望對數學及科學的學業成就的變異數分析中可得知自我期望越高學歷的組別大於自我期望低學歷的組別，但美國學生在數學及科學學業成就及韓國學生在數學學業成就的自我期望皆以「不知道」的組別最高。 六、家長支持對學生數學及科學學業成就的變異數分析可得知家長支持度高的組別普遍大於支持度低的組別，但是義大利的家長支持在數學及科學學業成就和臺灣的家長支持在科學學業成就上都是支持度最高的組別小於支持度最低的組別。 七、家長參與對學生數學及科學學業成就的變異數分析可得知家長參與度高的組別普遍大於參與度低的組別，但是臺灣的家長參與在科學學業成就上是參與度最高的組別小於參與度最低的組別。 八、家庭資本和學業成就之間的相關分析可得到母親學歷和學業成就無關，家庭資本變項中的自我期望與數學學業成就也無關，父親學歷與學業成就為負相關，其它變項與學業成就為正相關。 九、家庭資本對學業成就的解釋變異量以台灣最高，家庭資本對數學學業成就的解釋變異量為27.5%，對科學學業成就的解釋變異量為28.8%。 十、由SEM結果得知家庭資本中的家長支持和家長參與對數學及科學學業成就未達顯著差異。教育指標和家庭資本對學業成就具有一定的解釋力。 依據上述研究結果將提出相關結論與建議以供參考。 / The issue of student achievement has been concerned. In this research, will focus on the relationships between educational indicators and family capital on student academic achievement, the participants include students in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the United States and Italy. The published educational indicators and TIMSS 2007 survey results of 24,383 samples for the analysis of variance, Pearson correlation, stepwise multiple regression, structural equation modeling found that: 1. The relationship between educational indicators, student academic achievement in mathematics and science as a positive. Secondary education teacher/ student ratio, literacy, education expenditure/ GDP ratio of and academic achievement in mathematics and science as a negative. 2. The educational indicators of academic achievement in mathematics accounts for 25% variance, in science accounts for 9.7% variance. 3. In analysis of variance, the collection of books and learning resources on academic achievement in mathematics and science indicate that a group has more is higher than the group has fewer. 4. In analysis of variance, parental education on academic achievement in mathematics and science find that in United States is not significant in this analysis. In Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Italy, groups of higher education is the highest. 5. In analysis of variance, self expectation on academic achievement in mathematics and science indicate that a group with high self expectation is highest, but U.S. students in math and science academic achievement and Korea students in mathematics can find out that the students who "do not know" is the highest group. 6. In analysis of variance, parental support in student academic achievement in mathematics and science that groups with high parental support is higher than those with low parental support, but parental support on student academic achievement in mathematics and science in Italy, and parental support on academic achievement in science in Taiwan indicate that the highest group is less than the lowest one. 7. In analysis of variance, parental involvement in student academic achievement in mathematics and science that groups with high parental involvement is higher than those with low parental involvement, but in Taiwan, parental involvement on academic achievement in science indicate that the highest group is less than the lowest one. 8. The correlations between family capital and student academic achievement indicate that mother’s education is in no relation with academic achievement in mathematics and science, self-expectation is in no relation with mathematics academic achievement, the relationship between father’s education and academic achievement is negative, other variables and academic achievements is positive. 9. The variance of family capital in academic achievement in Taiwan is the highest: 27.5% in mathematics and 28.8% in science. 10. SEM results show that parental support and parental involvement is in no relationship with academic achievement in math and science. Educational indicators and family capital on academic achievement can be explained. Based on the results of the study, conclusions and recommendations will be presented for reference. Key words: Educational indicator, Family capital, Student academic achievement, TIMSS 2007.