1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 教育學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 臺灣高等教育資歷架構指標建構之研究
A study on the construction of indicators for the Taiwan framework for higher education qualifications
作者 黃志豪
Huang, Chih Hao
貢獻者 秦夢群
Chin, Meng Chun
黃志豪
Huang, Chih Hao
關鍵詞 高等教育資歷架構
資歷架構
學習成果
Framework for higher education qualifications
Education qualifications
Learing outcome
日期 2017
上傳時間 5-四月-2017 15:39:59 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究旨在建構適合臺灣的高等教育資歷架構指標構面，研究先以文獻歸納方式，初擬臺灣高等教育資歷架構構面指標，再以12位專家為對象，利用模糊德菲法建構指標，再以模糊層級分析法求得各構面指標權重。資料分析結論如下：
一、博士學位構面指標
(一)博士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「技能」為最低
(二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備該領域知識批判及理解能 力」為最高，而以「理解研究方法之最適選擇」為最低
(三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「對於該領域知識有關文獻或方法能進行深入的評論」為最高，而以「批判性評估與運用數字、圖像及數據」為最低
(四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在專業領域或學術活動中具備高度自主性及反省能力」為最高，而以「透過研究提出有水準的論文，以創新或詮釋知識」為最低
(五)博士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在專業領域或學術活動中具備高度自主性及反省能力」為最高，而以「批判性評估與運用數字、圖像及數據」為最低
二、碩士學位構面指標
(一)碩士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「知識」為最低
(二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備高度的專業領域知識」為最高，而以「理解研究方法之最適選擇」為最低
(三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「整合研究結果並將其運用至實務中」為最高，而以「在專業領域中具備專業解決問題技能」為最低
(四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在複雜任務設定及工作成果上，展現領導力」為最高，而以「研究能獲認可」為最低
(五)碩士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在複雜任務設定及工作成果上，展現領導力」為最高，而以「在專業領域中具備專業解決問題技能」為最低
三、學士學位構面指標
(一)學士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「知識」為最低
(二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備主修學科的基礎知識」為最高，而以「理解知識的暫時性及有限性」為最低
(三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「具備終身學習能力，以便不斷更新知識」為最高，而以「在有限資訊下能做出合理決定」為最低
(四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在專業團體中展現合作力」為最高，而以「能在他人引導下工作並具備反省能力」為最低
(五) 學士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在專業團體中展現合作力」為最高，而以「在有限資訊下能做出合理決定」為最低
四、高等教育著重「能力」構面
五、博士著重「知識」構面
六、研究所強調「自主性」與「領導力」，大學部強調「合作力」
本研究藉由結論發現，針對實務應用及未來研究提出如下之建議：
一、實務應用方面
(一)對於教育行政機關建議
1.建立高等教育學術資歷架構
2.評鑑指標強調學生能力構面
3.高教培育政策注重倫理道德
(二)對於高等教育機構建議
1.畢業條件參酌高等教育指標
2.課程規劃強調能力構面培育
3.博士培育首重自主反省能力
4.碩士培育強調複雜工作領導
5.學士培育主張團體合作能力
6.高教培育著重專業倫理道德
二、未來研究方面
(一)擴大研究對象
(二)加入質性方法
(三)增加研究變項
The purpose of the study was to construct the indicators for the Taiwan Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. Research methods include literature analysis, fuzzy Delphi technique and fuzzy AHP. In the literature analysis, this study discussed the theory of Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, studied Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. of each country and explored the initial construction of indicators for the Taiwan Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. In the empirical research, fuzzy Delphi questionnaire and fuzzy AHP questionnaires were used to investigate educational administration representatives, scholars and experts.

The conclusions of this study are：

1.Doctor degree：
(1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the doctor degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the doctor degree is “skill ”.
(2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the doctor degree is “have the Critical and comprehensive ability in the professional domain”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the doctor degree is “understand the most appropriate choice of the research methods ”.
(3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the doctor degree is “comment deeply on the literature and methods ”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the doctor degree is “estimate critically and utilize the number, figure and data ”.
(4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the doctor degree is “have autonomy and reflective ability in the professional domain ”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the doctor degree is “publish the essay with decent level by research to innovate and interpret knowledge ”.
(5)The most importance indicators in the doctor degree is “have autonomy and reflective ability in the professional domain”. The least importance indicators in the doctor degree is “estimate critically and utilize the number, figure and data”.
2.Master degree：
(1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the master degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the master degree is “knowledge ”.
(2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the master degree is “have the high level knowledge in the professional domain”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the master degree is “understand the most appropriate choice of the research methods ”.
(3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the master degree is “integrate the research conclusions and apply the research conclusions”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the master degree is “have the problem solve skill in the professional domain”.
(4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the master degree is “have the leadership in the complicate task”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the master degree is “research can be recognized ”.
(5)The most importance indicators in the master degree is “have the leadership in the complicate task”. The least importance indicators in the master degree is “have the problem solve skill in the professional domain”.
3.Bachelor degree：
(1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the bachelor degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the bachelor degree is “knowledge ”.
(2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the bachelor degree is “have the basic knowledge of the major subject”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the bachelor degree is “understand the temporality and limitation of knowledge”.
(3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the bachelor degree is “have the life learning ability”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the bachelor degree is “make reasonable decision in the limited information”.
(4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the bachelor degree is “cooperate in the profession team”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the bachelor degree is “work by the guidance and have the reflective ability”.
(5)The most importance indicators in the bachelor degree is “cooperate in the profession team”. The least importance indicators in the bachelor degree is “make reasonable decision in the limited information”.
3.Doctor degree focus on “knowledge ” level than master degree and bachelor degree.
4.Graduate focus on autonomy and leadership. Undergraduate focus on cooperation.

In addition, this research intends to offer suggestion respectively on the aspect of
practical application and future study.
參考文獻 壹、中文部分
于承平（2009）。臺灣國家資歷架構之建置及其可能之影響。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
于承平、高安邦、林俞均（2010）。英國、澳洲及歐盟資歷架構發展經驗對臺灣之啟示。教育資料集刊，47，213-244。
王如哲（2010）。解析「學生學習成效」。評鑑雙月刊，27，62-62。
李坤崇（2010）。大學核心能力與能力指標之建置。教育研究月刊，190，107-112。
李隆盛（2008）。未來臺灣發展國家資歷架構之探討與建議。就業安全半年刊，97（1），4-8。
吳京玲（2009年1月）。大學生核心能力指標建構之初探究。「2009海峽兩岸高等教育永續發展學術研討會」發表之論文，國立暨南國際大學。
吳政達（2009）。臺灣地方政府層級教育課責系統建構之評估：模糊德菲法之應用。教育與心理研究，28，645-665。
吳清山（2009）。臺灣高等教育革新的重要課題與未來發展之分析。長庚人文社會學報。4(2)，241-280。
張紹勳（2009）。模糊多準則評估法及統計。臺北市：五南。
陳淑敏、宋明娟、甄曉蘭（2009）。大學生專業能力指標之發展-以國立臺灣師範大學為例。高等教育，5（2），61-100。
陳春盛（2008年10月）。科技大學學生核心能力培養與落實。「公共政策論壇—高等教育系列9：大學生的核心能力與素養」發表之論文，國立政治大學。
周行一（2008年10月）。大學生核心能力與素養：國際化與人才培育。「公共政策論壇—高等教育系列9：大學生的核心能力與素養」發表之論文，國立政治大學。
教育部（2010）。第八次全國教育會議。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2015a）。教育統計指標之國際比較與分析。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2015b）。中華民國教育程度標準分類(第5次修正)。臺北市：教育部。
香港教育局（2008）。資歷級別通用指標。香港：香港教育局。
簡瑋成、張鈿富（2011）。臺灣地區大學生學習態度與核心就業力之相關性探究。教育研究月刊，211，77-97。
劉金山（2011）。從核心能力觀點論高等教育人才培育革新之策略。研習資訊，28（4），47-56。
劉孟奇、邱俊榮、胡均力（2006）。在正式教育中提升就業力-大專畢業生就業力調查報告。臺北市:行政院青年輔導委員會。
侯永琪（2009）。亞太各國建構「資歷架構」的發展。評鑑雙月刊，19，41-44。
侯永琪（2012）。高等教育流動與學術資歷認可。評鑑雙月刊，40，51-54。
梁琍坽（2013）。紐澳資歷架構在終身學習的應用與啟示。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
郭昭佑、邱婕欣、張雅婷（2012）。從「投入」到「產出」―大學校院如何確保學生的學習成效？教育研究月刊，219，103-113。
廖尉伶（2012）。香港資歷架構制度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。

貳、英文部分
Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago(2007). Draft document of TertiaryQualifications Framework. Port of Spain, Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago.
ASEAN(2007). ASEAN Framework Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition of SurveyingQualifications. Jakarta, ASEAN.
ASEAN(2014). The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework. Jakarta, ASEAN.
Association of American Colleges and Universities(2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education And America’s Promise. NW, Washington, DC：Association of American Colleges and Universities.
APEC(2009). Mapping qualifications frameworks across APEC economies. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
APEC(2014). The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
AQFC(2011). Australian Qualifications Framework First Edition July 2011. Australia, Australian Qualifications Framework Council for the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment.
AQFC(2013). Australian Qualifications Framework Second Edition January 2013. Australia, Australian Qualifications Framework Council.
Bhutan Accreditation Council(2012). Bhutan Qualifications Framework. Point of Reference and Tertiary Education Qualifications in Bhutan. Thimphu, Bhutan Accreditation
Council.
Bouder, A.(2003). Qualifications in France: towards a national framework? Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 347–356.
Brockington, D.(2005). The national qualifications framework in England: A summary outline. Oxford: Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training.
Carey, K.(2008). Measuring up: The right report at the right time. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (15), 88.
CARICOM(2012). CARICOM Qualifications Framework. St Michael, Barbados, CARICOM.
CEDEFOP(2008). Terminology of European education and training policy. Luxembourg, CEDEFOP
CEDEFOP(2010). Learning outcomes approaches in VET curricula. Luxembourg, CEDEFOP
CEDEFOP(2011).Glossary: Quality in Education and Training. Luxembourg, CEDEFOP.
CEDEFOP(2013). The role of qualifications in governing occupations and professions.Luxembourg, CEDEFOP.
Chen, S. J. & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
De Villiers, H. C.(1997). Affirmative action and the qualification structure. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Pretoria.
Directorate General of Higher Education(2012) Indonesian Qualifications Framework (Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia) Presidential Decree no. 8/2012: Implication a
nd Implementation Strategies. Jakarta, Ministry of Education and Culture.
DQR(2011). The German Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Berlin, German
Qualifications Framework Working Group (AK DQR).
Educational Research Institute(2013). Referencing the Polish qualifications framework for Lifelong learning to the European qualifications framework. Warsaw: Educational Research Institute.
European Commission(2005). The European higher education area─Achieving the goals.Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
European Communities(2008). The European qualifications framework for lifelong learning.Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
European Commission(2014a). European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal Learning 2014. Country report: Belgium (Flanders). Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
European Commission(2014b). European inventory on validation of nonformal and informal learning 2014: Country report Hungary. Brussels, Belgium：European
Commission.
European Commission(2014c). European inventory on validation of nonformal and informal learning 2014: Country report Switzerland. Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
ENQA(2009). ENQA Position Paper on Quality Assurance in the EHEA - in view of the Leuven and Louvainla-Neuve meeting of ministers responsible for higher education of
28-29 April 2009 . Brussels, Belgium.
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point of departure. Washington DC: CHEA Occasional Paper.
Garcia, B. S.(2013). Linking recognition practices to national qualifications frameworks. International benchmarking of experiences and strategies on the recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning. Hamburg, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
Gerhards, J., & Hans, S. (2013). Transnational human capital, education, and social inequality. Analyses of international student exchange. Zeitschrift fu¨r Soziologie, 42,99–117.
Hadiyanto, S.(2010). The Development of Core Competencies at Higher Education: A Suggestion Model for Universities in Indonesia. International Journal for Educational Studies, 3(1), 11-22.
Hadiyanto, S., & Suratno, T.(2015). The Practices of Students’ Generic Skills Among Economics Students at National University of Indonesia. Higher Education Studies, 5(2), 52-61.
ILO(2006). Glossary of Key Terms on Learning and Training for Work. Geneva, ILO.
Jessup, G.(1991). Outcomes: NVQs and the Emerging Model of Education mid Training. New York, RoutledgeFalmer.
Josie, M.(2012). The role of qualifications in foreign labour mobility in Australia. Adelaide：NCVER.
Keevy, J., & Chakroun, B.(2015). Level-setting and recognition of learning outcomes. Paris:UNESCO.
Keevy, J., Charraud, A., & Allgoo, K.(2011, November). National qualifications frameworks
developed in Anglo-Saxon and French traditions. Considerations for sustainable development in Africa. at the meeting of the ADEA Triennial on Education and Training in Africa. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Khorramshahgol, R., &; Moustakis, V. S. (1988). Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Dephi method and analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37(3), 347-354.
Kingdom of Cambodia(2012). Cambodia Qualifications Framework. Royal Government of Cambodia.
Kingdom of Cambodia(2013). Qualifications Framework; Update on Development and Next Steps. Phnom Penh, Royal Government of Cambodia.
Konevas, L., & Duoba, K.(2007). The role of student mobility in the development of human capital in Europe. Economics and Management, 12, 585–591.
Knut, P., & Tamara, P.(2015). The social norm to study abroad: determinants and effects. High
Education, 69, 885-900.
Kristoffersen, D.(2010). From the first pilot projects to the founding of ENQA(1994~2000). ENQA: 10 years (2000-2010)-A decade of European co-operation in quality assurance in higher education. 5-8.
Lubinescu, E. S., Ratcliff, J. L., & Gaffney, M. A.(2001). Two continuums collide: Accreditation and assessment. New Directions for Higher Education, 113. 5-21.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency(2013). STANDARDS: MASTER’S AND DOCTORAL DEGREE. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Malaysian Qualifications Agency
Malarme, J. P.(2013). Report on referencing the French-speaking qualifications framework for lifelong learning to the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning.Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
Maldives Accreditation Board(2009). The Maldives National Qualifications Framework.Male, Maldives Qualifications Authority.
Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment(2012a). Education Act (CAP. 327): Malta qualifications framework for lifelong learning. Legal Notice 294. Valletta, Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment.
Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment(2012b). Education Act (CAP. 327): validation of nonformal and informal learning. Legal Notice 295. Valletta, Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment.
Maltese Ministry of Education and Employmen(2014). Framework for the education strategy for Malta 2014-24: sustaining foundations, creating alternatives, increasing employability. Valletta, Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment.
Méhaut, P.(2012). The European Qualifications Framework: Skills, Competences or Knowledge? European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 369–81.
Méhaut, P., & Winch, C.(2012).The European Qualification Framework: skills, competences or knowledge? European Educational Research Journal, 11, 369-381.
Ministry of Higher Education and Research(2012). Report on referencing the Luxembourg qualifications framework to the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning and to the qualifications framework in the European Higher Education Area. Luxemburg, Ministry of Higher Education and Research
Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology(2012). Sessional paper of 2012: A policy framework for education and training. Nairobi, Government of Kenya.
Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology(2012). Kenya Qualifications Framework Bill. Nairobi, MoHEST
Mohammed, S. I., & Husaina, B. K.(2013). Students’ Generic Skills: A Comparative Study between Malaysia and Indonesia. Life Science Journal, 10(2), 2840-2848.
Najib, O., & Tom, V. (2011). Report On Draft Structure of Qualifications Authority (ANQA) and Model of Qualifications Framework (ANQF) For Afghanistan. Kabul, Afghanistan:CINOP.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research(2011). The Norwegian qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. Oslo, Norway：Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research(2012). Norwegian qualifications framework: levels and learning outcome descriptors. Oslo, Norway：Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
OECD(2007). Qualifications systems: Bridges to lifelong learning. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD(2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society: Governance, funding, quality(Vol.1). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD(2010). Learning for Jobs. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD(2014). How many students study abroad?. In OECD (Eds.), OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics (pp. 192-193). OECD Publishing, Paris.
Office of the Higher Education Commission(2006). National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Thailand Implementation Handbook. Bangkok: Office of the Higher
Education Commission
Parey, M., & Waldinger, F. (2010). Studying abroad and the effect on international labour market mobility: Evidence from the introduction of ERASMUS. The Economic Journal, 121, 194–222.
Paralee, M., Kanchit M., & Jintavee K.(2015). The Comparison of Thai Qualification Framework for Higher Education and Capability Maturity Model Integration for Service. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 225-231.
Reza, K., & Vassilis, S. M.(1988).Delphi hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting. Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process.European Journal
of Operational Research,37,347-354.
Rexeisen, R. J., Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., & Hubbard, A. C. (2008). Study abroad and Intercultural development: A longitudinal study. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal to Study Abroad, 17, 1–20.
Rwandan National Qualifications Framework(2007). Rwandan National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education. Kigali, Ministry of Education.
QAA(2001). The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.UK:QAA.
QAA(2014). Qualifications can cross boundaries: A rough guide to comparing qualifications in the UK and Ireland. Gloucester: QAA.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw.
Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influence white and minority student’s intent to study abroad. Higher
Education, 52, 23–150.
Scottish Education Department (SED). (1983). 16–18s in Scotland: An Action Plan. Edinburgh, SED.
South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment(2011). The Pacific Qualifications Framework. Suva, South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment
UNESCO(1996). Learning The Treasure Within. Report of the International Commission on Education for the 21st Century. Paris：UNESCO.
UNESCO(2015a).Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students. Paris:UNESCO.
UNESCO(2015b).Global Inventory of Regional and National QualificationsFrameworks. Paris:UNESCO.
UNESCO -UIS(2011). International Standard Classification of Education 2011. Montreal, Quebec, UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Winch, G. M., Onishi, M., & Schmidt, S. E.(2011). Taking Stock of PPP and PFI around the World. London：ACCA Research.
Van der Sanden, K., Smit, W., & Dashorst, M.(2012). The referencing document of the Dutch national qualification framework to the European qualifications framework. Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
Young, M. F. D. (2005). National Qualifications Frameworks: Their Feasibility and Effective Implementation in Developing Countries. Geneva, ILO.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
教育學系
102152508
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102152508
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 秦夢群zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chin, Meng Chunen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 黃志豪zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Huang, Chih Haoen_US
dc.creator (作者) 黃志豪zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Huang, Chih Haoen_US
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 5-四月-2017 15:39:59 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 5-四月-2017 15:39:59 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-四月-2017 15:39:59 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0102152508en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/108134-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 教育學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102152508zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在建構適合臺灣的高等教育資歷架構指標構面，研究先以文獻歸納方式，初擬臺灣高等教育資歷架構構面指標，再以12位專家為對象，利用模糊德菲法建構指標，再以模糊層級分析法求得各構面指標權重。資料分析結論如下：
一、博士學位構面指標
(一)博士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「技能」為最低
(二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備該領域知識批判及理解能 力」為最高，而以「理解研究方法之最適選擇」為最低
(三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「對於該領域知識有關文獻或方法能進行深入的評論」為最高，而以「批判性評估與運用數字、圖像及數據」為最低
(四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在專業領域或學術活動中具備高度自主性及反省能力」為最高，而以「透過研究提出有水準的論文，以創新或詮釋知識」為最低
(五)博士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在專業領域或學術活動中具備高度自主性及反省能力」為最高，而以「批判性評估與運用數字、圖像及數據」為最低
二、碩士學位構面指標
(一)碩士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「知識」為最低
(二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備高度的專業領域知識」為最高，而以「理解研究方法之最適選擇」為最低
(三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「整合研究結果並將其運用至實務中」為最高，而以「在專業領域中具備專業解決問題技能」為最低
(四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在複雜任務設定及工作成果上，展現領導力」為最高，而以「研究能獲認可」為最低
(五)碩士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在複雜任務設定及工作成果上，展現領導力」為最高，而以「在專業領域中具備專業解決問題技能」為最低
三、學士學位構面指標
(一)學士學位構面重要性以「能力」為最高，而以「知識」為最低
(二)「知識」構面下指標重要性以「具備主修學科的基礎知識」為最高，而以「理解知識的暫時性及有限性」為最低
(三)「技能」構面下指標重要性以「具備終身學習能力，以便不斷更新知識」為最高，而以「在有限資訊下能做出合理決定」為最低
(四)「能力」構面下指標重要性以「在專業團體中展現合作力」為最高，而以「能在他人引導下工作並具備反省能力」為最低
(五) 學士學位指標串聯權重重要性以「在專業團體中展現合作力」為最高，而以「在有限資訊下能做出合理決定」為最低
四、高等教育著重「能力」構面
五、博士著重「知識」構面
六、研究所強調「自主性」與「領導力」，大學部強調「合作力」
本研究藉由結論發現，針對實務應用及未來研究提出如下之建議：
一、實務應用方面
(一)對於教育行政機關建議
1.建立高等教育學術資歷架構
2.評鑑指標強調學生能力構面
3.高教培育政策注重倫理道德
(二)對於高等教育機構建議
1.畢業條件參酌高等教育指標
2.課程規劃強調能力構面培育
3.博士培育首重自主反省能力
4.碩士培育強調複雜工作領導
5.學士培育主張團體合作能力
6.高教培育著重專業倫理道德
二、未來研究方面
(一)擴大研究對象
(二)加入質性方法
(三)增加研究變項		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of the study was to construct the indicators for the Taiwan Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. Research methods include literature analysis, fuzzy Delphi technique and fuzzy AHP. In the literature analysis, this study discussed the theory of Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, studied Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. of each country and explored the initial construction of indicators for the Taiwan Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. In the empirical research, fuzzy Delphi questionnaire and fuzzy AHP questionnaires were used to investigate educational administration representatives, scholars and experts.

The conclusions of this study are：

1.Doctor degree：
(1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the doctor degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the doctor degree is “skill ”.
(2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the doctor degree is “have the Critical and comprehensive ability in the professional domain”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the doctor degree is “understand the most appropriate choice of the research methods ”.
(3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the doctor degree is “comment deeply on the literature and methods ”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the doctor degree is “estimate critically and utilize the number, figure and data ”.
(4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the doctor degree is “have autonomy and reflective ability in the professional domain ”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the doctor degree is “publish the essay with decent level by research to innovate and interpret knowledge ”.
(5)The most importance indicators in the doctor degree is “have autonomy and reflective ability in the professional domain”. The least importance indicators in the doctor degree is “estimate critically and utilize the number, figure and data”.
2.Master degree：
(1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the master degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the master degree is “knowledge ”.
(2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the master degree is “have the high level knowledge in the professional domain”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the master degree is “understand the most appropriate choice of the research methods ”.
(3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the master degree is “integrate the research conclusions and apply the research conclusions”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the master degree is “have the problem solve skill in the professional domain”.
(4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the master degree is “have the leadership in the complicate task”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the master degree is “research can be recognized ”.
(5)The most importance indicators in the master degree is “have the leadership in the complicate task”. The least importance indicators in the master degree is “have the problem solve skill in the professional domain”.
3.Bachelor degree：
(1)The highest overall weight distribution of the level in the bachelor degree is “competency ”. The lowest overall weight distribution of the level in the bachelor degree is “knowledge ”.
(2)The highest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the bachelor degree is “have the basic knowledge of the major subject”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the knowledge level in the bachelor degree is “understand the temporality and limitation of knowledge”.
(3)The highest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the bachelor degree is “have the life learning ability”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the skill level in the bachelor degree is “make reasonable decision in the limited information”.
(4)The highest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the bachelor degree is “cooperate in the profession team”. The lowest overall weight distribution in the competency level in the bachelor degree is “work by the guidance and have the reflective ability”.
(5)The most importance indicators in the bachelor degree is “cooperate in the profession team”. The least importance indicators in the bachelor degree is “make reasonable decision in the limited information”.
3.Doctor degree focus on “knowledge ” level than master degree and bachelor degree.
4.Graduate focus on autonomy and leadership. Undergraduate focus on cooperation.

In addition, this research intends to offer suggestion respectively on the aspect of
practical application and future study.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 5
第四節 研究範圍與限制 6
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 高等教育資歷架構理論 8
第二節 區域高等教育資歷架構探究 16
第三節 國家高等教育資歷架構探究 33
第四節 臺灣高等教育資歷架構初構 53
第三章 研究設計與實施 115
第一節 研究架構 115
第二節 研究工具 116
第三節 評估專家 117
第四節 實施程序 117
第五節 資料處理與分析 118
第四章 研究結果與討論 121
第一節 臺灣高等教育學術資歷架構指標構面建構之專家內容效度問卷結果分析 121
第二節 臺灣高等教育學術資歷架構指標構面體系問卷結果分析 129
第三節 臺灣高等教育學術資歷架構指標權重體系問卷結果分析 138
第四節 綜合分析與討論 149
第五章 結論與建議 162
第一節 結論 162
第二節 建議 166
參考文獻 169
附錄一 專家內容效度問卷 176
附錄二 模糊德菲法問卷 187
附錄三 模糊層級分析法問卷 195		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2635347 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102152508en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 高等教育資歷架構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資歷架構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學習成果zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Framework for higher education qualificationsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Education qualificationsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Learing outcomeen_US
dc.title (題名) 臺灣高等教育資歷架構指標建構之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A study on the construction of indicators for the Taiwan framework for higher education qualificationsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 壹、中文部分
于承平（2009）。臺灣國家資歷架構之建置及其可能之影響。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
于承平、高安邦、林俞均（2010）。英國、澳洲及歐盟資歷架構發展經驗對臺灣之啟示。教育資料集刊，47，213-244。
王如哲（2010）。解析「學生學習成效」。評鑑雙月刊，27，62-62。
李坤崇（2010）。大學核心能力與能力指標之建置。教育研究月刊，190，107-112。
李隆盛（2008）。未來臺灣發展國家資歷架構之探討與建議。就業安全半年刊，97（1），4-8。
吳京玲（2009年1月）。大學生核心能力指標建構之初探究。「2009海峽兩岸高等教育永續發展學術研討會」發表之論文，國立暨南國際大學。
吳政達（2009）。臺灣地方政府層級教育課責系統建構之評估：模糊德菲法之應用。教育與心理研究，28，645-665。
吳清山（2009）。臺灣高等教育革新的重要課題與未來發展之分析。長庚人文社會學報。4(2)，241-280。
張紹勳（2009）。模糊多準則評估法及統計。臺北市：五南。
陳淑敏、宋明娟、甄曉蘭（2009）。大學生專業能力指標之發展-以國立臺灣師範大學為例。高等教育，5（2），61-100。
陳春盛（2008年10月）。科技大學學生核心能力培養與落實。「公共政策論壇—高等教育系列9：大學生的核心能力與素養」發表之論文，國立政治大學。
周行一（2008年10月）。大學生核心能力與素養：國際化與人才培育。「公共政策論壇—高等教育系列9：大學生的核心能力與素養」發表之論文，國立政治大學。
教育部（2010）。第八次全國教育會議。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2015a）。教育統計指標之國際比較與分析。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2015b）。中華民國教育程度標準分類(第5次修正)。臺北市：教育部。
香港教育局（2008）。資歷級別通用指標。香港：香港教育局。
簡瑋成、張鈿富（2011）。臺灣地區大學生學習態度與核心就業力之相關性探究。教育研究月刊，211，77-97。
劉金山（2011）。從核心能力觀點論高等教育人才培育革新之策略。研習資訊，28（4），47-56。
劉孟奇、邱俊榮、胡均力（2006）。在正式教育中提升就業力-大專畢業生就業力調查報告。臺北市:行政院青年輔導委員會。
侯永琪（2009）。亞太各國建構「資歷架構」的發展。評鑑雙月刊，19，41-44。
侯永琪（2012）。高等教育流動與學術資歷認可。評鑑雙月刊，40，51-54。
梁琍坽（2013）。紐澳資歷架構在終身學習的應用與啟示。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
郭昭佑、邱婕欣、張雅婷（2012）。從「投入」到「產出」―大學校院如何確保學生的學習成效？教育研究月刊，219，103-113。
廖尉伶（2012）。香港資歷架構制度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。

貳、英文部分
Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago(2007). Draft document of TertiaryQualifications Framework. Port of Spain, Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago.
ASEAN(2007). ASEAN Framework Arrangement for the Mutual Recognition of SurveyingQualifications. Jakarta, ASEAN.
ASEAN(2014). The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework. Jakarta, ASEAN.
Association of American Colleges and Universities(2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education And America’s Promise. NW, Washington, DC：Association of American Colleges and Universities.
APEC(2009). Mapping qualifications frameworks across APEC economies. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
APEC(2014). The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework. Singapore: APEC Secretariat.
AQFC(2011). Australian Qualifications Framework First Edition July 2011. Australia, Australian Qualifications Framework Council for the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment.
AQFC(2013). Australian Qualifications Framework Second Edition January 2013. Australia, Australian Qualifications Framework Council.
Bhutan Accreditation Council(2012). Bhutan Qualifications Framework. Point of Reference and Tertiary Education Qualifications in Bhutan. Thimphu, Bhutan Accreditation
Council.
Bouder, A.(2003). Qualifications in France: towards a national framework? Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 347–356.
Brockington, D.(2005). The national qualifications framework in England: A summary outline. Oxford: Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training.
Carey, K.(2008). Measuring up: The right report at the right time. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (15), 88.
CARICOM(2012). CARICOM Qualifications Framework. St Michael, Barbados, CARICOM.
CEDEFOP(2008). Terminology of European education and training policy. Luxembourg, CEDEFOP
CEDEFOP(2010). Learning outcomes approaches in VET curricula. Luxembourg, CEDEFOP
CEDEFOP(2011).Glossary: Quality in Education and Training. Luxembourg, CEDEFOP.
CEDEFOP(2013). The role of qualifications in governing occupations and professions.Luxembourg, CEDEFOP.
Chen, S. J. & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
De Villiers, H. C.(1997). Affirmative action and the qualification structure. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Pretoria.
Directorate General of Higher Education(2012) Indonesian Qualifications Framework (Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia) Presidential Decree no. 8/2012: Implication a
nd Implementation Strategies. Jakarta, Ministry of Education and Culture.
DQR(2011). The German Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Berlin, German
Qualifications Framework Working Group (AK DQR).
Educational Research Institute(2013). Referencing the Polish qualifications framework for Lifelong learning to the European qualifications framework. Warsaw: Educational Research Institute.
European Commission(2005). The European higher education area─Achieving the goals.Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
European Communities(2008). The European qualifications framework for lifelong learning.Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
European Commission(2014a). European inventory on validation of non-formal and informal Learning 2014. Country report: Belgium (Flanders). Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
European Commission(2014b). European inventory on validation of nonformal and informal learning 2014: Country report Hungary. Brussels, Belgium：European
Commission.
European Commission(2014c). European inventory on validation of nonformal and informal learning 2014: Country report Switzerland. Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
ENQA(2009). ENQA Position Paper on Quality Assurance in the EHEA - in view of the Leuven and Louvainla-Neuve meeting of ministers responsible for higher education of
28-29 April 2009 . Brussels, Belgium.
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point of departure. Washington DC: CHEA Occasional Paper.
Garcia, B. S.(2013). Linking recognition practices to national qualifications frameworks. International benchmarking of experiences and strategies on the recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning. Hamburg, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
Gerhards, J., & Hans, S. (2013). Transnational human capital, education, and social inequality. Analyses of international student exchange. Zeitschrift fu¨r Soziologie, 42,99–117.
Hadiyanto, S.(2010). The Development of Core Competencies at Higher Education: A Suggestion Model for Universities in Indonesia. International Journal for Educational Studies, 3(1), 11-22.
Hadiyanto, S., & Suratno, T.(2015). The Practices of Students’ Generic Skills Among Economics Students at National University of Indonesia. Higher Education Studies, 5(2), 52-61.
ILO(2006). Glossary of Key Terms on Learning and Training for Work. Geneva, ILO.
Jessup, G.(1991). Outcomes: NVQs and the Emerging Model of Education mid Training. New York, RoutledgeFalmer.
Josie, M.(2012). The role of qualifications in foreign labour mobility in Australia. Adelaide：NCVER.
Keevy, J., & Chakroun, B.(2015). Level-setting and recognition of learning outcomes. Paris:UNESCO.
Keevy, J., Charraud, A., & Allgoo, K.(2011, November). National qualifications frameworks
developed in Anglo-Saxon and French traditions. Considerations for sustainable development in Africa. at the meeting of the ADEA Triennial on Education and Training in Africa. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Khorramshahgol, R., &; Moustakis, V. S. (1988). Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Dephi method and analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37(3), 347-354.
Kingdom of Cambodia(2012). Cambodia Qualifications Framework. Royal Government of Cambodia.
Kingdom of Cambodia(2013). Qualifications Framework; Update on Development and Next Steps. Phnom Penh, Royal Government of Cambodia.
Konevas, L., & Duoba, K.(2007). The role of student mobility in the development of human capital in Europe. Economics and Management, 12, 585–591.
Knut, P., & Tamara, P.(2015). The social norm to study abroad: determinants and effects. High
Education, 69, 885-900.
Kristoffersen, D.(2010). From the first pilot projects to the founding of ENQA(1994~2000). ENQA: 10 years (2000-2010)-A decade of European co-operation in quality assurance in higher education. 5-8.
Lubinescu, E. S., Ratcliff, J. L., & Gaffney, M. A.(2001). Two continuums collide: Accreditation and assessment. New Directions for Higher Education, 113. 5-21.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency(2013). STANDARDS: MASTER’S AND DOCTORAL DEGREE. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Malaysian Qualifications Agency
Malarme, J. P.(2013). Report on referencing the French-speaking qualifications framework for lifelong learning to the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning.Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
Maldives Accreditation Board(2009). The Maldives National Qualifications Framework.Male, Maldives Qualifications Authority.
Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment(2012a). Education Act (CAP. 327): Malta qualifications framework for lifelong learning. Legal Notice 294. Valletta, Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment.
Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment(2012b). Education Act (CAP. 327): validation of nonformal and informal learning. Legal Notice 295. Valletta, Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment.
Maltese Ministry of Education and Employmen(2014). Framework for the education strategy for Malta 2014-24: sustaining foundations, creating alternatives, increasing employability. Valletta, Maltese Ministry of Education and Employment.
Méhaut, P.(2012). The European Qualifications Framework: Skills, Competences or Knowledge? European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 369–81.
Méhaut, P., & Winch, C.(2012).The European Qualification Framework: skills, competences or knowledge? European Educational Research Journal, 11, 369-381.
Ministry of Higher Education and Research(2012). Report on referencing the Luxembourg qualifications framework to the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning and to the qualifications framework in the European Higher Education Area. Luxemburg, Ministry of Higher Education and Research
Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology(2012). Sessional paper of 2012: A policy framework for education and training. Nairobi, Government of Kenya.
Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology(2012). Kenya Qualifications Framework Bill. Nairobi, MoHEST
Mohammed, S. I., & Husaina, B. K.(2013). Students’ Generic Skills: A Comparative Study between Malaysia and Indonesia. Life Science Journal, 10(2), 2840-2848.
Najib, O., & Tom, V. (2011). Report On Draft Structure of Qualifications Authority (ANQA) and Model of Qualifications Framework (ANQF) For Afghanistan. Kabul, Afghanistan:CINOP.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research(2011). The Norwegian qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. Oslo, Norway：Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research(2012). Norwegian qualifications framework: levels and learning outcome descriptors. Oslo, Norway：Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
OECD(2007). Qualifications systems: Bridges to lifelong learning. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD(2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society: Governance, funding, quality(Vol.1). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD(2010). Learning for Jobs. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD(2014). How many students study abroad?. In OECD (Eds.), OECD Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics (pp. 192-193). OECD Publishing, Paris.
Office of the Higher Education Commission(2006). National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Thailand Implementation Handbook. Bangkok: Office of the Higher
Education Commission
Parey, M., & Waldinger, F. (2010). Studying abroad and the effect on international labour market mobility: Evidence from the introduction of ERASMUS. The Economic Journal, 121, 194–222.
Paralee, M., Kanchit M., & Jintavee K.(2015). The Comparison of Thai Qualification Framework for Higher Education and Capability Maturity Model Integration for Service. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 225-231.
Reza, K., & Vassilis, S. M.(1988).Delphi hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting. Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process.European Journal
of Operational Research,37,347-354.
Rexeisen, R. J., Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., & Hubbard, A. C. (2008). Study abroad and Intercultural development: A longitudinal study. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal to Study Abroad, 17, 1–20.
Rwandan National Qualifications Framework(2007). Rwandan National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education. Kigali, Ministry of Education.
QAA(2001). The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.UK:QAA.
QAA(2014). Qualifications can cross boundaries: A rough guide to comparing qualifications in the UK and Ireland. Gloucester: QAA.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw.
Salisbury, M. H., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). Why do all the study abroad students look alike? Applying an integrated student choice model to explore differences in the factors that influence white and minority student’s intent to study abroad. Higher
Education, 52, 23–150.
Scottish Education Department (SED). (1983). 16–18s in Scotland: An Action Plan. Edinburgh, SED.
South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment(2011). The Pacific Qualifications Framework. Suva, South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment
UNESCO(1996). Learning The Treasure Within. Report of the International Commission on Education for the 21st Century. Paris：UNESCO.
UNESCO(2015a).Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students. Paris:UNESCO.
UNESCO(2015b).Global Inventory of Regional and National QualificationsFrameworks. Paris:UNESCO.
UNESCO -UIS(2011). International Standard Classification of Education 2011. Montreal, Quebec, UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Winch, G. M., Onishi, M., & Schmidt, S. E.(2011). Taking Stock of PPP and PFI around the World. London：ACCA Research.
Van der Sanden, K., Smit, W., & Dashorst, M.(2012). The referencing document of the Dutch national qualification framework to the European qualifications framework. Brussels, Belgium：European Commission.
Young, M. F. D. (2005). National Qualifications Frameworks: Their Feasibility and Effective Implementation in Developing Countries. Geneva, ILO.		zh_TW