| Summary: | 碩士 === 臺北市立教育大學 === 教育行政與評鑑研究所碩士班 === 99 === The purpose of this study was to construct the university ranking indicators, and to confirm the weigh system.
Content analysis, the Fuzzy Delphi Method, and Analytic Hierarchy Process were used in this study as main research methods. First, through the analysis of world university ranking systems and literature review abot ranking in Taiwan, a “questionnaire on construction of the university ranking indicators” was developed. Next, we invited 29 experts who are educational scholars and university administrative managers to compose a Fuzzy Delphi Group in order to collect the relative opinions toward the university ranking indicators. According to their opinions, we selected indicators and weighted each of them. Finally, “the university ranking indicators” were established.
According to the above research methods and the analysis, the conclusions of the study are as follows:
1.The university ranking system contains 4 dimensions and 15 indicators and all have enough fitness.
(1)There are 4 dimensions for university ranking system, including of “education quality”, “reaerch performances”, “internaionalization”, and “industry resources”.
(2)There are 5 indicators for the dimension of education quality.
(3)There are 5 indicators for the dimension of reaerch performances.
(4)There are 2 indicators for the dimension of internaionalization.
(5)There are 3 indicators for the dimension of industry resources.
2.The dimensions’ weighted values of the university ranking indicators are arranged in sequential order from high to low as follows: education quality, reaerch performances, internationalization, and industry resources.
3.The most weighted indicator in each dimension is as follows: “school reputation” in the dimension of education quality; “number of articles per faculty” in the dimension of reaerch performances ; “proportion of international students” in the dimension of internationalization ; and “employer opinion” in the dimension of industry resources. Among all the indicators, “school reputation” ranked first.
Bsed on the above conclusions, this study presents suggestion for the education administration, universities, and future studies.
|
|---|
