本研究旨在建構一套適用當前教育環境的「國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系」，以作為未來有效評鑑國民小學辦學績效的基礎。
研究者透過推薦程序，選定教育學者、教育行政人員、小學校長及小學教師等合計138名為參與評定專家，以進行指標可用性及相對權重分配之調查及訪談，並應用卡方考驗、階層分析程序法(AHP) 等進行考驗分析，最後建構完成「國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系」。研究結果顯示：
一、「國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系」中，一級指標包含了「教育輸入」、「教育歷程」與「教育產出」。其相對權重分配，「教育輸入」指標為26％，「教育歷程」指標為41％，「教育產出」指標則為33％。
二、一級指標中之教育輸入指標，下轄「發展目標與計畫」、「經費與教學設備」、「教師能力素質」與「學校環境品質」等四個二級指標。其相對權重分配，依序為20％、17％、43％與20％，其下並分別下轄數個三級評鑑指標。
三、一級指標中之教育歷程指標，下轄「校長領導作為」、「學校行政管理」、「學校組織氣氛」與「教師教學品質」等四個二級指標。其相對權重分配，依序為23％、12％、23％與42％，其下並分別下轄三到四個三級評鑑指標。
四、一級指標中之教育產出指標，下轄「發展目標與計畫達成」、「學生成就表現」、「教師專業成長」與「學校社區聲望」等四個二級指標，其相對權重分配，依序為24％、34％、28％與14％，其下並分別下轄二到四個三級評鑑指標。
五、三級評鑑指標項下，並建構有評估細目指標，惟並無相對權重之設計，以符合實務應用時客觀具體與因地制宜之平衡需求。
此外，本研究也針對「學校效能評鑑模式」、「評鑑指標的有效選擇」與「相對權重的理想建構」等進行分析討論。文末並針對實務應用與未來之研究方向等提出具體之建議。 / The purpose of this study aims to establish the evaluation indicators and the weight system of school effectiveness in elementary education. Total of 138 experts were recommended to help developing the evaluation indicators. The subjects consisting of educators, administrators, principals, teachers in elementary schools are implemented with questionnaires and interviews. The main work of these experts was to judge the availability of indicators and the ratio of weights. The results are analyzed by Chi-square test and Analytic Hierarchy Process（AHP）. The conclusion manifests as follows:
1) the first-order indicators in the weight system for elementary school effectiveness include educational input, educational process, and educational output. The weight for each inidicator is 26%, 41% and 33% respectively. The second-order inidicators and their weights are stated as follows:
a.) the "educational input" comprises four second-order indicators: developing goals and planning (20％), expenditure and equipment（17％）, teachers' competence（43％） and environmental quality（20％）. There are three third-order indicators under these second-order indicators.
b.) the "educational process" encompasses four second-order indicators: principal's leadership（23％）, administration and management（12％）, school climate (23％) and teaching quality (42%). Each of these indicators contains three or four third-order indicators.
c.) the "educational output" contains of four second-order indicators: the developing and achieving goals（24％）, students' performance（34％）, teachers' professional development（28％）, and school's reputation in community (14％). Each of these indicators also contains 2 to 4 third-order indicators.
2.) the reason for the fourth-order indicators not given any weight is to keep the flexibility of this system in various education settings.
Besides, this study also discusses the evaluation model of school effectiveness, the effective choice of indicators and the ideal construct of indicator weight. At the end of the study also proposes some concrete suggestions for practice and further study.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/A2002000192 |
| Creators | 謝金青, Hsieh, King-Ching |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds