| Summary: | 博士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 工業教育學系 === 99 === This study is aimed at constructing the evaluation indicators for comprehensive high schools in a 2-stage, 3-step evaluation process using a service-oriented evaluation model and composite method as well. In the first stage, evaluation indicators for comprehensive high schools were constructed and implemented in a 3-step process, with Step 1 being the construction of a set of draft indicators (for evaluation of comprehensive high schools) through literature review; Step 2 being the revisions to indicators by means of interviews with experts, focus groups, and survey research; Step 3 being the confirmation of indicators using the Delphi Technique, so as to construct evaluation indicators for comprehensive high schools. In the second stage, the Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP) was adopted to determine the weight for indicators. Based on research findings summarized in the conclusion, the author of this study proposed recommendations.
I. Finally
1. The method of evaluating comprehensive high schools
(1) A service-oriented model was proposed to evaluate comprehensive high schools.
(2) A composite system of methods was proposed to evaluate comprehensive high schools.
2. The definition of evaluation indicators for comprehensive high schools
(1) A 4-level hierarchical structure of indicators was proposed, which consists of service-oriented dimensional indicators, Level-1 indicators, Level-2 indicators and Level-3 indicators;
(2) Service-oriented, cross-section structural indicators were proposed, including 4 Level-1 indicators, 11 Level-2 indicators, 33 Level-3 indicators, and 117 Level-4 indicators.
(3) A statement was presented to urge high-school headmasters to acquire an excellent educational philosophy, professionalism, and leadership in order to facilitate the reform of school operations.
(4) To achieve sustainable development, the performance and distinctive features required of a comprehensive high school were proposed.
3. The weight distribution among evaluation indicators for comprehensive high schools
(1) The concept of diversified programs was proposed, with a focus on student aptitude, curriculum and discipline/counseling.
(2) An argument was proposed to suggest that program-based instructions shall be prioritized, so the teachers are able to teach effectively and students learn while showing improvements.
(3) A developmental mechanism was proposed to prioritize the program-based instructions, administrative management, and curricular development.
(4) Academic program development, administrative operations and student performance were integrated into a mechanism of instructional activities.
(5) The overall weight distribution appropriately responds to, and will hopefully match, the policy and vision announced by the Ministry of Education (MOE).
II. Recommendations
1. Suggestions for Educational Authorities
(1) It is advised that evaluation indicators specific to Taiwan be established for comprehensive high schools; those indicators may serve as helpful information for educational authorities.
(2) When designing the evaluation questionnaire for comprehensive high schools, the educational agencies are advised to consider the weight distribution.
(3) It is advised that evaluation indicators for comprehensive high schools put equal emphasis on Taiwan’s school system and academic program development.
(4) It is advised that the MOE-published evaluation indicators be revised according to those constructed in this study.
2. Suggestions for Comprehensive High Schools
(1) The schools are advised to consult the indicators constructed in this study and operate major school affairs accordingly.
(2) The schools are advised to consult the indicators constructed in this study and establish self-assessment mechanisms to examine their operations on a regular basis.
(3) The schools are advised to develop their own distinctive indicators in order to meet the comprehensive high schools’ development goals.
(4) In order to conduct quantitative self-assessments, the schools are advised to give operational definitions to their evaluation indicators.
|
|---|
