本研究旨在建構國民中學教育國際化指標。首先藉由文獻探討初擬指標架構，並以桃園縣政府教育處行政人員、桃園縣國民中學校長、主任、教師及學生家長為研究對象，透過問卷蒐集政策利害關係人之意見，共發出10份專家問卷及30份正式問卷。根據正式問卷填答結果，採用「模糊德菲術」（fuzzy Delphi method）為資料分析方法，計算各構面及指標之三角模糊數（triangular fuzzy number），再將其反模糊化（defuzzification），求得各構面及指標之效用總值，自訂門檻值為0.5，篩選出8項構面及38項指標，並以歸一化方式確立各構面及指標權重。各構面之權重由高至低依序為組織與規劃（13.7%）、課程與教學（12.5%）、願景與領導（12.4%)、經費與資源（12.4%）、教師素質（12.4%）、環境與設施（12.3%）、交流與合作(12.2%)以及學生素質（12.1%）。最後根據此指標架構對主管教育機關、學校及未來研究提出建議。 / This research aims for constructing the indicators for internationalization of education in junior high schools. After literature review, this research proposes the draft structure of indicators. The object of research is the administrators in Taoyuan educational administration and the headmasters, directors, teachers and parents in Taoyuan’s junior high schools. Through the questionnaires, it collects the suggestions of these people, and sent out 10 experts and 30 formal questionnaires in account. According to the result of the formal questionnaires, it takes “fuzzy Delphi method” as the method to analyze the data and to count the triangular fuzzy number of each aspect and indicator. Then it uses the method of “defuzzification” to get the total utility. Book threshold value 0.5, select 8 aspects and 38 indicators, and make sure the weight of each aspect and indicator by normalization. The construct weight of aspects from high to low are “organize and plan”（13.7%）, “course and teaching” （12.5%）, “Vision and lead ” (12.4%), “the funds and resource”(12.4%), “teacher's quality” ( 12.4%), “the environment and facility” ( 12.3%) , “the exchange and cooperation ” (12.2%) ,and “student's quality” ( 12.1%) . Finally, it makes the suggestions to the schools, educational administration and the research in the future according to this indicator structure.

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.

本研究旨在建立國小學校建築用後評估指標，透過國內外相關文獻整理，初擬出國小學校建築用後評估指標，經由國內專家進行適切性問卷與及模糊德菲術問卷評估，確立國小學校建築用後評估指標與權重，以提供未來主事之校長或教育主管機關自整體規劃階段能有所依循，將有限的預算發揮滿足教育所需最大效益。 本研究建構之指標系統共為三大構面、15個向度及104個指標項目，有關指標構面、向度權重排序為： 一、「建築設計」構面權重為36.64％，各向度權重介於3.54％至8.16％之間，依序為物理環境、設計原則、戶外空間、服務空間、教學空間、行政空間。 二、「使用與維護管理」構面權重為35.30％，各向度權重介於5.03％至8.25％之間，依序為安全性、維護成本、教學設備之使用、戶外空間之使用、室內空間之使用。 三、「整體規劃」構面權重為28.06％，各向度權重介於3.51％至9.73％之間，依序為動線規劃、空間配置、量體規劃、景觀綠美化。 在個別指標項目方面，在「整體規劃」構面下順位前3名依序為「1.1.5圖書館（室）位置符合使用需求」（1.2092％）、「1.3.3校內之人、車動線規劃，有明顯區隔」（1.0639％）、「1.3.1校門、地下停車場出入口位置已考量周邊道路鄰近社區設置」（1.0379％）。 「建築設計」構面下順位前3名依序為「2.1.2校舍屋頂形式具有良好防水及隔熱功能」（1.0968％）、「2.5.4排水系統規劃良好，不會造成校內地坪或走廊積水現象」（1.0666％）、「2.1.6校舍座向已考量日照及風向配置」（1.0653％）。 「使用與維護管理」構面下順位前3名依序為「3.4.8電動門（鐵捲門）啟動時有警示訊號」（1.0762％）、「3.5.3室內無漏水情形」（1.0749％）、「3.4.2女兒牆及欄杆的高度、型式均符合安全」（1.0721％）。 關鍵字：用後評估、學校建築、模糊德菲術 / This thesis approaches to establishing some evaltuion indexes of elemantry school buildings by studying local and global bibliography or articles. Using suitable “Questionnaire Survey” and “Fuzzy Delphi” theory on local savants and scholars by POE (Post-Occupancy Evalution), this thesis proves some evaltuion indexes and weight values those are useful and consultative for presidents of elemantry school or officials in Department of Education to manage campus more safety and spend budget more efficiency. After cases studying and database analyzing, this thesis figures out 15 factors and 104 index items in 3 principals, as follows: 1. 1st principal is “Architectural Design” (values:36.64%), and the evalution factors are physical environment > design rules > exterior > service area > teaching area > administ area.(values from 8.16% to 3.54%). 2.2nd principal is “Facility Management”(values:35.3%), and the evalution factors are safety > cost > use frequency of educational facility > use frequency of exterior > use frequency of interior(values from 8.25% to 5.03%). 3.3rd principal is “Master Plan”(values:28.06%), and the evalution factors are axials plan > spatial layout > mass plan > landscaoe plan(values from 9.73% to 3.51%). The analysis results in Index Item of “Master Plan” are as follows: (1) the location of library is suitable(values:1.2092%). (2) the path of pedestrians and vehicles is separated(values:1.0639%). (3) the exit of main door and parking lot is closed to communities(valuses:1.0379%) The analysis results in Index Item of “Aechitecture Design” are as follows: (1) the roof is water-proof and heat-protect(values:1.0968%). (2) the drainage system is useful to keep floor and balcony dry(values:1.0666%). (3) the layout of buildings is caused to sun-trace and wild-direction(values:1.0653%). The analysis results in Index Item of “Facility Management” is as follow: (1) operate the rolling door within alarm(values:1.0762%). (2) the interior is leak proof(values:1.0749%). (3) the height of parapet and railing is saft(values:1.0762%). Key wrod：Post-Occupancy Evaluation, School buildings、Fuzzy Delphi

本研究在建立教師專業能力之指標，主要研究方法為文獻探討後採用模糊德菲術問卷調查法。藉由文獻探討分析主要來探討相關理論與研究成果，作為本研究的學理依據；再邀請專家對問卷指標逐一確認，以提升問卷效度，作為進一步模糊德菲術問卷的編製依據，分析專家群體意見之差異性，確認專家群體意見是否趨向一致。最後根據模糊德菲術調查問卷的最大值、最小值及最佳單一值化成雙三角模糊函數，進行量化的指標統計篩選。獲得之結論如下： 一、本研究所擬定之指標共計有：教學能力、班級經營與輔導、研究發展與進修、敬業精神與態度等四個層面；在每個層面並分別有三到四個的指標，計有十二個指標；每個指標下分別含有三到九個不等的檢核項目，共計有五十二個檢核項目。 二、本研究所建構之指標系統構面依權重高低依序前三名為教學方法（15.5％）、人際關係（11.1％）、輔導知能（7.9％）。 藉由分析討論獲得結論後，提出相關建議，敘述如下：辦理相關研習，提升專業知能；建立內省能力，提升專業形象；落實教師評鑑工作，作為了解教師績效與改進之參考；教師評鑑制度要與教師專業發展相結合；應視教育現況，建構適切之教師專業能力指標；應提供多元的課程滿足教育的專業化、多元化與國際化，並因應不同生涯發展階段的需求提供教師進修研習的課程。 / The research aimed to establish the indicators of teacher’s professional abilities. Fuzzy Delphi method was utilized for data collection after the discussion of the documents. The theoretical basis of this research was derived from analyzing the documents, discussing related theories and other research achievements. Furthermore, the research was conducted to collect experts’ opinions on the indicators in questionnaires to promote their validity, which was the main basis of compiling the Fuzzy Delphi Method questionnaires. From the questionnaires, the author could analyze the differences of experts’ opinions and confirm whether their opinions could come to agreement. Finally, based on the maximum, minimum and best single value, the author obtained the following conclusions: First, this research consists of four dimensions: teaching ability, class management and student counseling, research development and further education and professional spirits. Each dimension is composed of three to four indicators. There are twelve indicators in total. Each indicator also contains three to nine control items. There are fifty-two control items in total. Second, according to the established indicator system, the author obtains the top three indicators: teaching method (15.5%), interpersonal relationship (11.1%) and counseling competence (7.9%). After analyzing and discussion the data, the author brought up related suggestions described as follows: holding more workshops to promote teachers’ professional competence; improving teachers’ introspective ability to promote their professional images; reinforcing teachers’ evaluation as the reference for their improvements; combining teachers’ evaluation system and profession; according to the educational situation, establishing proper professional indicators for teachers; providing diverse courses and programs according to different stages of teachers’ life arrangement to reach the ideal of professional, diverse and international education.

合理科學的高級中學學校評鑑指標體系不僅是教育主管機關檢測學校辦學績效的需要，更是促進學校經營品質提高的指南。目前政府正在推動十二年國民基本教育政策，現有的高級中學學校評鑑指標體系尚存在不同教育主管機關之間的差異問題，因此，需要建構符合十二年國民基本教育實施後新的高級中學學校評鑑指標體系。 本研究的評鑑指標體系是在理性分析的基礎上，首先對指標體系構建的理論基礎、依據、原則進行分析，依據十二年國民基本教育子方案「高中校務評鑑實施方案」，並參考國際相關評鑑指標架構的經驗，確定本研究高級中學學校評鑑指標體系架構。據此擬訂高級中學學校評鑑指標適切性問卷初稿，蒐集焦點團體座談和專家問卷調查的改進建議，增刪、修正部分指標及其內涵說明。其次，依模糊德菲術問卷調查結果，以模糊權重值的高低評選高級中學評鑑指標，經歸一化處理確定權重從而建構本研究之評鑑指標體系，作為高級中學學校評鑑實施之參考。 本研究構建的評鑑指標體系分為「層面、指標及指標內涵說明」，第一級評鑑層面包括校長領導、行政管理、課程教學、學務輔導、環境設備、社群互動、績效表現七個層面。各層面所占權重分別為「課程教學」權重為20.04%、「學務輔導」權重為18.05%、「績效表現」權重為15.76%、「行政管理」權重為13.85%、「環境設備」權重為12.09%、「校長領導」權重為10.55%、「社群互動」權重為9.67%；第二級評鑑指標計50個，每個評鑑指標所占權重介於1.8%至2.2%之間。 / Reasonable and scientific senior high school evaluation indicator system not merely fulfills the need of education authorities to evaluate the performance of a school; it also guides a school in terms of enhancing the quality of school management. Currently the government has been implementing 12-year basic education, and there are disparities within the existing senior high school evaluation indicator systems employed by different education authorities. A new senior high school evaluation indicator system that will meet the need of 12-year basic education, therefore, needs to be set up. The evaluation indicator system of this study is based on rational analysis. In accordance with the “The Implementation Scheme of Senior High School Evaluation” of “12-Year Basic Education” and with reference to international evaluation indicators, this study, for one thing, analyzes the theoretical framework, bases, and principles of indicator system. A first draft of a questionnaire concerning the appropriateness of senior high school evaluation indicators is then drawn up. With the suggestions for revision deriving from the conferences of focus groups and experts’ survey, some indicators and their connotations have been added and revised. For the other thing, with the results of the survey using Fuzzy Delphi Method, the value of the fuzzy weight is normalized and used to select senior high school evaluation indicators. The evaluation indicator system of this study is thus established, which is intended to serve as a reference for the implementation of senior high school evaluation. The evaluation indicator system of this study comprises dimensions, indicators, and their connotations. The first-order evaluation dimension consists of seven dimensions, including principal’s leadership, administrative management, curriculum and teaching, guidance of student affairs, facilities, community interactions, and performance. The weight of each dimension is 0.11, 0.14, 0.20, 0.18, 0.10, 0.10, and 0.16 respectively. The second-order evaluation includes 50 indicators, and the weight of each indicator is between 1.8% and 2.2%.

本研究旨在建構我國大學教師評鑑指標，以供大學做為教師續聘和升等之參考。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學教師之三大角色構面和47項教師評鑑指標，並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確定。接著以多元度量法和集群分析的方式整合大學教師對指標的分類，以建構評鑑構面，並利用模糊德菲術整合大學教師對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項指標權重，完成我國大學教師評鑑指標系統。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下： 一、本研究確立我國大學教師評鑑指標，為三大構面共34項指標。指標三大構面依權重高低依序為：研究構面（41%）、教學構面（35%）、服務構面（24%）。 二、大學教師評鑑之服務構面底下分為三個次構面，分別為專業性服務、一般性服務、學生指導。 三、研究構面之下權重最重的指標依次為：1-1.在原創性研究上獲得之榮譽或獎勵（佔7.78%）；1-2.在有外審制度之期刊發表論文（佔4.64%）；1-3.學術影響力（佔4.53％）。 四、教學構面下，2-1.教學內容的品質與適切性（佔3.54%）；2-2.優良教師獲獎（佔3.41%）；2-3.教學方法（佔3.14%）。 五、服務構面權重最重的指標為學生指導此一次構面下的指標3-10.指導碩士學位和博士學位學生論文（佔2.25%）權重最重，其次為專業性服務此一次構面下的指標3-1擔任專業期刊的主編或審查委員（佔2.14%）。 　　本研究依研究結果提出以下建議： 　　一、對高等教育主管機關之建議。 　　二、對大學教師之建議。 三、對未來研究之建議。 / The purpose of this study is to construct the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators which aim for faculty tenure and promotion. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 47 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators based on which the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the sample of 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 the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect faculty’s opinion about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of faculty evaluation. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number’s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system was constructed. The main conclusions are as follows: 1.Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system consists of 3 dimensions and 34 indicators in total. The 3 dimensions are: research (accounts for 41%), teaching (35%), and service (24%). 2.The dimension of service consists of 3 sub-dimensions, which are professional service, general service, and student counsel. 3.In the dimension of research, the indicator of honor on original research accounts for the most part (7.78%), and then the indicator of writing papers in reviewed journals accounts for 4.64%. 4.In the dimension of teaching, the indicator of the quality of teaching content accounts the most (3.54%), and the indicator of teaching awards accounts for 3.41%. 5.In the dimension of service, the indicator of advising masters’ and doctors’ theses accounts the most (2.25), and the indicator of serving as an editor or reviewer of professional journals accounts for 2.14%. According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed： 　　1. suggestions for higher education administrators 　　2. suggestions for faculty members 　　3. suggestions for further study.

本研究旨在建立國民中學總務主任核心能力指標，藉以提供相關主管單位進行總務人力培訓及學校行政人員職涯進修之參考。研究初始，先以文獻分析法歸納出國民中學總務主任核心能力指標，並邀請專家委員進行適切性問卷與模糊德菲術問卷評估，完成指標的修正與確立。接著，即運用三角模糊術整合專家委員對指標內容重要性之看法，並接續指標篩選作業，最後以歸一化方式求得各構面與指標權重，遂完成整體指標系統建立。 本研究建構之指標系統共為六大構面38項指標，各構面權重介於15.8%至17.3%之間，有關構面權重與指標內涵依序排列為： 一、「自我管理」構面（17.3%），各指標權重介於3.2%至3.8%間，依序為：廉潔自持、敬業精神、溝通表達、行政倫理、情商管理。 二、「法規知能」構面（17.2%），各指標權重介於2.0%至2.5%間，依序為：政府採購法規知能、消防法規知能、財產管理法規知能、建築法規知能、營繕法規知能、主計法規知能、勞工安全衛生法規知能、文書管理法規知能。 三、「管理實務」構面（16.8%），各指標權重介於1.7%至2.0%間，依序為：採購管理、營繕工程管理、防災與校安管理、風險與危機管理、出納與財務管理、資源管理、事務工作管理、職工管理、文書與檔案管理。 四、「行政領導」構面（16.8%），各指標權重介於1.7%至2.0%間，依序為：領導與協調、行政與績效管理、團隊建立與合作、政策執行、人力資源管理、計畫撰擬與管理、問題分析與規劃、公共關係管理、會議管理。 五、「校園營造」構面（16.1%），各指標權重介於3.9%至4.2%間，依序為：設備與設施維護、綠能與環保管理、空間規劃、綠美化管理。 六、「永續創發」構面（15.8%），各指標權重介於5.1%至5.4%間，依序為：顧客導向、前瞻與創新、反思與再造。 / The purpose of this study is to construct main competency indicators of director of general affairs in junior high school, which aim to provide governments with information about training personnel of general affairs and school administrators. To start the research, main competency indicators of director of general affairs was organized by literature review. Then invite experts to conduct appropriate assessment and Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire evaluations, completing modification of indicators. Secondly, Symmetric triangular fuzzy number was used to analyze experts’ opinions on the importance of each indicator and continue indicator selection. Finally, normalization of fuzzy number’s total score determined the weight of each dimensions and indicators, so that build the whole indicator system. The indicator system consists of six dimensions and 38 indicators, and the weight of each dimension is between 15.8% and 17.3%. The contents of dimensions and indicators are as follows: 1. Dimension of “self-management”: each weight of indicators is between 3.2% and 3.8%, which are reputation, professional dedication, communication, administrative ethics and emotional quotient management. 2. Dimension of “knowledge of rules and regulations”: each weight of indicators is between 2.0% and 2.5%, which are rules of public purchasing, rules of fire services, rules of property management, rules of building technique, rules of construction and maintenance, rules of accounting, rules of labor safety and health, and rules of document management. 3. Dimension of “practice of management”: each weight of indicators is between 1.7% and 2.0%, which are purchasing management ,building and maintenance management, management of disaster reduction and school security, risk management, finance management, resource management, general affairs management, personnel management, and document management. 4. Dimension of “ administrative leadership”: each weight of indicators is between 1.7% and 2.0%, which are leadership and negotiation, administration and performance management, team building and collaboration, policy enforcement, management of human resource, program writing and management, problem analyzing and programing, public relationship management and meeting management. 5. Dimension of “school operation and maintenance”: each weight of indicators is between 3.9% and 4.2%, which are facilities maintenance, green resource and environment management, space design and greenification management. 6. Dimension of “sustainable development”: each weight of indicators is between 5.1% and 5.4%, which are customer orientation, being proactive and creative, introspection and re-built.

本研究主要目的在於臺北縣升格為準直轄市的背景下探討：(1) 分析臺北縣高中職實施公辦民營之內部、外部效益；(2)評估臺北縣公立高中職公辦民營之可行性；(3) 評估臺北縣公立高中職公辦民營之可行模式；(4) 建構臺北縣公立高中職公辦民營的推動策略;(5)探討民間參與學校公辦民營的動機；(6)分析臺北縣推動公立高中職公辦民營可行區域。希望政府藉由積極結合民間資源共同辦理公共事務，以公辦民營的手段，將民間的管理專業觀念、做法及資金，正面影響學校行政結構、學校經營模式，達成最佳的學校經營成效。 本研究法採文獻分析法、模糊德菲術，針對學校公辦民營的理論、模式、政策與實施四種向度進行探究。研究結果歸納如下： 1.臺北縣實施公立高中職公辦民營之效益為藉由鼓勵民間共同參與辦學，降低財政負擔，以及增加學校多角化經營空間，提供家長多樣化的教育選擇機會。 2.經營型態以特許學校、契約政體模式最為可行。 3.臺北縣於高中職實施的選擇上，以職業學校為優先。 4.臺北縣公辦民營學校之經費來源、財務審計規範、課程與教學、人事運作等應該擁有自主權。 5.臺北縣行政機關應加速研擬公立高中職公辦民營專屬法規。 6.臺北縣政府應建立相關的監督及輔導評鑑的制度，評鑑部分需含自我評鑑及行政機關評鑑，並將評鑑結果公佈。 7.臺北縣新莊市擁有推動公立高中職教育公辦民營的先行試辦優勢。 / On the background of the Taipei County elevating status to “Quasi-Direct-controlled municipality”, the purposes of the research are as follows: (1)Analyzing the internal and external efficiencies when putting private management of public high schools system into practice in Taipei County. (2) Evaluating the feasibility of putting private management of public schools into practice. (3) Evaluating the available models of private management of public high schools in Taipei County. (4)Constructing the strategies of putting private management of public high schools in Taipei County. (5)Inspecting the motors of private associations getting themselves into private management of public high schools in Taipei County.(6)analyzing the feasible regions of Taipei County when putting private management of public high schools system into practice. The government should positively guides private resources into the public affairs, hoping that the civil management concept, business administration conduct, and bankroll can positively affect the public school administrative structure and help the school achieve the best accountability. The research, by adopting methods of documentary analysis, and Fuzzy Delphi, probes into the four dimensions of theory, models, policy, and implementation of private management of public schools. The main conclusions are as follows： 1.The advantages of putting private management of public high schools system into practice were to combine private organizations to decrease government’s financial burden, as well as increasing diverse management space and providing parents various opportunities of educational choices. 2.“Charter school model” and “contract management model” are of the highest feasibility in terms of the implementation of private management of public school in elementary school level in Taipei County. 3.Priority over private management of public school option is new established schools. 4.Private management of public elementary school in Taipei County should possess decision-making power in some aspects including budget source, financial regulation, curriculum and teaching, personnel system . 5.The Taipei county government should accelerate to enact special laws about private management of public school. 6.the Taipei County government should establish relevant systems of control, management, guidance and evaluation. Evaluation system should include Self-Evaluation and Administration- Evaluation, and open the results to the public. 7.The Sinjhuang City of Taipei County has the best potential strengths of putting private management of public high schools system into practice

本研究旨在建構大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標－以JCSEE方案評鑑標準為基礎，並提出結論與建議，以供大學實施系所自我評鑑之參考。 研究方法上，先以文獻分析初擬出大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標，接著以專家問卷進行指標的刪修和確定，再利用模糊德菲術問卷整合專家學者對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化方式求得各指標的權重，完成我國大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下： 一、本研究建構之大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標，計有五大類，三十個標準，六十項指標。 二、參考「JCSEE方案評鑑標準」建構大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標，其方法可行。 三、本研究建構之大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑五大類標準中，以「適切性標準」較為重要。 四、大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑各類別標準中，分別以「有意義的過程和結果」、「脈絡的可行性」、「回應與包容導向」、「可靠的資訊」、「評鑑檔案化」較重要。 最後，本研究根據研究結果，提出相關建議，俾供教育主管機關、大學系所以及後續研究之參考。 / The purpose of the study is to construct of meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation - based on the JCSEE program evaluation standards, in order to provide conclusions and suggestions for the university to implement the departmental self-evaluation. According to the research methods, first, through the analysis of literature review, it preliminarily develops the meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation. Second, the expert’s questionnaires modified the preliminary indicators. Third, by using the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire about important indicators evaluated by experts are integrated. Final, normalization of fuzzy number’s total score determined the weight of each indicator, establishing the meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation. The main conclusions follow: 1. The meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation consist with five major categories, 30 standards, 60 indicators in total. 2. The method is feasible that constructing the meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation based on the JCSEE program evaluation standards. 3. The meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation consist of five major categories, the ‘propriety standards’ is the most important. 4. The meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation consists with 30 standards, ‘meaningful processes and products’ in utility standards, ‘contextual viability’ in feasibility standards, ‘responsive and inclusive orientation’ in propriety standards, ‘valid information’ in accuracy standards, and ‘evaluation documentation’ in evaluation accountability standards are the most important. In conclusion, the findings and results in the hope of providing suggestions for educational administrative institutions, university departments, and future studies.

本研究旨在建構地方教育行政機關知識管理成熟度指標，並藉以評估地方教 育行政機關知識管理品質。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析探究知識管理成熟度相關論述，再以專家問卷以及模糊德菲術問卷進行調查。專家問卷為十位教育學術與行政兼備專家，模糊德菲術問卷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，篩選出共三項構面及39項指標，完成地方教育行政機關知識管理成熟度指標指標體系，並以歸一化方式確立各構面及指標權重。各構面之主要權重為文化（33.3%）、流程（33.4%）、科技（33.3%）。根據研究之結果與分析，對地方教育行政機關與教育行政人員提出相關之建議，也對未來研究提出相關建議。