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 我國大學學生學習成效指標建構之研究
A Study of Indicators Construction of Learning Outcomes Assessment for University Students in Taiwan.
作者 田宜庭
貢獻者 吳政達
田宜庭
關鍵詞 高等教育評鑑
學生學習成效評量
大學學生學習成效指標
higher education evaluation
student learning outcomes assessment
student learning outcomes indicators
日期 2012
上傳時間 1-七月-2013 18:07:21 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究旨在建構我國大學學生學習成效評量指標,以供高等教育機構做為實施大學學生學習成效評量之參考。研究方法部分,先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學學生學習成效之60項評量指標,並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確立。接著運用多元度量法和集群分析法整合高等教育專家學者及大學行政主管對指標的分類以建構評量構面,並利用模糊德菲術整合高等教育專家學者及大學行政主管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,完成我國大學學生學習成效評量指標系統。根據研究結果與分析,歸納主要結論及建議如下:
一、結論
(一)本研究確立我國大學學生學習成效評量指標,建構出六大構面共28項指標。指標六大構面依權重高低依序為:「人際互動與社會適應」構面(佔21.54%)、「思考與創新」構面(佔17.97%)、「應用與執行」構面(佔17.87%)、「人文關懷與社會責任」構面(佔17.09%)、「溝通能力」構面(佔14.45%)、「知識與技能」構面(佔11.08%)。
(二)「知識與技能」構面下,權重最重的指標依次為:1-1學科專業知識(佔4.01%);1-2專業應用技術(佔3.68%)。
(三)「思考與創新」構面下,權重最重的指標依次為:2-4問題解決能力(佔4.06%);2-5邏輯分析能力(佔3.54%)。
(四)「應用與執行」構面權重最重的指標依次為:3-1計畫與組織能力(佔3.86%);3-4整合應用能力(佔3.64%)。
(五)「溝通能力」構面權重最重的指標依次為:4-3本國語文能力(佔3.86%);4-2書面溝通能力(佔3.58%)。
(六)「人際互動與社會適應」構面權重最重的指標依次為:5-2團隊合作能力(佔3.81%);5-4自我管理能力(佔3.70%)。
(七)「人文關懷與社會責任」構面權重最重的指標依次為:6-1社會關懷(佔3.60%);6-2人文素養(佔3.52%)。

二、建議
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:制訂全國性資歷架構;發展大學生學習成效評量。
(二)對大學行政主管之建議:連結課程地圖與職涯發展;建置完善事證蒐集系統。
(三)對大學學生之建議:訂定個人學習發展計畫;充分運用個人學習歷程檔案自我行銷。
(四)對未來研究之建議:發展效用總值更高之指標;建構大學個別學門學習成效指標;持續針對大學學生學習成效評量指標更新。
The purpose of this study is to construct the indicators of learning outcomes assessment for university students in Taiwan. As for research methods, through literature review, 60 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of student learning outcomes indicators for university students 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�� opinions on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection.
At the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect experts and university administrative directors�� opinions about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of student learning outcomes indicators. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number��s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, indicators system of learning outcomes assessment for university students was constructed. The main conclusions and suggestions are as follows:

1. Indicators system of learning outcomes assessment for university students consists of 6 dimensions and 28 indicators in total. The 6 dimensions are: knowledge and skills (accounts for 11.08%), critical thinking and creative thinking (accounts for 17.97%), application and implementation (accounts for 17.87%), communication (accounts for 14.45%), interpersonal interaction and social adaptation (accounts for 21.54%), and humanistic care (accounts for 17.09%).
2. In the dimension of knowledge and skills, the indicator of disciplinary expertise accounts for the most part (4.01%), and then the indicator of disciplinary skills accounts for 3.68%.
3. In the dimension of critical thinking and creative thinking, the indicator of problem-solving accounts the most (4.06%), and the indicator of logical analysis accounts for 3.54%.
4. In the dimension of application and implementation, the indicator of planning and organization accounts the most (3.86%), and the indicator of integrated application accounts for 3.64%.
5. In the dimension of communication, the indicator of native language accounts the most (3.86%), and the indicator of written communication accounts for 3.58%.
6. In the dimension of interpersonal interaction and social adaptation, the indicator of team work accounts the most (3.81%), and the indicator of self-management accounts for 3.70%.
7. In the dimension of humanistic care, the indicator of social care accounts the most (3.60%), and the indicator of humanistic literacy accounts for 3.52%.

According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed:
1. Suggestions for higher education administrators: construct national qualification framework and develop learning outcomes assessment for university students.
2. Suggestions for administrative directors of university: connect curriculum mapping with career development; construct evidence-gathering system.
3. Suggestions for students of university: develop personal learning and development plans; make full use of personal learning portfolios.
4. Suggestions for further study: develop indicators which have higher total utility; construct indicators of learning outcomes for individual academy, and continuously update the indicators of learning outcomes assessment for university students.
參考文獻 一、中文部分
大學法(2005年12月28日)。

大學評鑑辦法(2007年1月9日)。
王保進(2010a)。導入品質保證內涵與重視學生學習成效之大學校務評鑑。
評鑑雙月刊,24。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/03/01/2709.aspx
王保進(2010b)。校務評鑑對學生學習成效機制自我評鑑之作業方向。評
鑑雙月刊,27。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/09/01/3324.aspx
王保進(2010c)。建立學生學習成效評估機制之大學校務評鑑。評鑑雙月
刊,26。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/07/01/3162.aspx
王保進(2011a)。從評鑑取向探討學生學習成效品質保證機制之內涵。教
育研究月刊,207,5-17。
王保進(2011b)。校務評鑑對學生學習成效評鑑機制自我評鑑之作業方向。
評鑑雙月刊,27。取自
http://staffweb.ncnu.edu.tw/hdcheng/evaluation/100ecaluation/27_5-2_7-13.pdf
王保進(2012a)。第二週期系所評鑑認可關鍵要素解析。評鑑雙月刊,35。
取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/01/01/5302.aspx
王保進(2012b)。大學校院校務評鑑結果解讀。評鑑雙月刊,35。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/01/01/5249.aspx
王玉麟(2011)。以核心能力為基礎織學生學習成效評量機制:以中央大學
為例。教育研究月刊,207,42-52。
王金龍(2010)。銘傳大學學習成果評量推動經驗分享。評鑑雙月刊,28。
取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/11/01/3698.aspx
中山大學(2010)。中山大學歷程檔案系統。取自
http://ep.oaa.nsysu.edu.tw/Login.php?system=ep#
中央大學(無日期)。中大學生基本素養及核心能力架構。取自
http://english.ncu.edu.tw/word/中大學生基本素養及核心能力架構.doc
北一區區域教學資源中心(2011)。學生學習成效評估機制推動經驗分享座
談會。北一區區域教學資源中心電子報,12。取自
http://nttlc.scu.edu.tw/ct.aspx?xItem=1698724&CtNode=1405&mp=16
池俊吉(2011a)。大學校院推動學習成效為本教育應有之認知與作為。評
鑑雙月刊,33。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/09/01/4825.aspx
池俊吉(2011b)。香港資歷架構下之學生學習成效評估機制。評鑑雙月刊,
32。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/07/01/4591.aspx
成功大學(2009)。成功大學課程地圖。取自
http://class-qry.acad.ncku.edu.tw/crm/course_map/index.php
米澤彰純、森利枝著、許媛翔譯(2009)。學習成效與品質保證:日本高等教
育面臨的挑戰。評鑑雙月刊,20,46-48。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/images/epaper_heeact_edu_tw/2009_0701_No20/PDF_20/20_10-2_46-48.pdf
何希慧(2007)。化被動為主動:國外一流大學提升學生學習成效五妙方。
評鑑雙月刊,6。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2007/03/09/172.aspx
李秉乾(2011)。逢甲大學以學生學習成效為主體之教學品質保證機制。評
鑑雙月刊,34。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/11/01/5024.aspx
李隆生(2010)。評鑑小辭典:100年度大學校務評鑑重點說明。評鑑雙月
刊,27。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/09/01/3329.aspx
吳京玲(2011)。建構大學生核心能力架構之研究:分析學術界與產業界的
觀點。通識教育學刊,7,9-38。
吳政達、郭昭佑(1997)。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應
用。教育與心理研究,20(2),217-242。
吳政達(2008)。教育政策分析:概念、方法與運用。臺北:高等教育文
化事業有限公司。
余民寧(1997)。有意義的學習-概念構圖之研究。臺北:商鼎。
阮亨中、吳柏林(2000)。模糊數學與統計應用。臺北:俊傑。
吳清山、王令宜(2006)。臺灣地區的大學評鑑:回顧與展望。「2006海峽
兩岸教育發展與改革」學術研討會發表之論文。臺北市:國立政治
大學。
吳清山、王令宜(2007)。我國大學評鑑:挑戰、因應策略與發展方向。課
程與教學季刊,10(4),15-30。
吳清山(2010)。高等教育評鑑議題研究。臺北市:高等教育。
吳清山(2011)。我國百年教育回顧與展望:我國大學評鑑的回顧與展
望。取自http://data.nioerar.edu.tw/public/Data/191518565171.pdf
東吳大學(2011)。東吳大學學生e-portfolio簡介。取自
http://www.scu.edu.tw/career/scuepmenu/cap-intro.html
侯永琪(2009)。亞太各國建構資歷架構的發展。評鑑雙月刊,19。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2009/05/01/1607.aspx
侯永琪與Woodhouse(2010)。學習成效評估之國際發展。評鑑雙月刊,
27。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/09/01/3341.aspx
侯永琪、蔡小婷(2011)。亞太國家以學生學習成效為本之校務評鑑—以紐
西蘭與香港為例。評鑑雙月刊,30。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/03/01/4152.aspx
香港教育局(2008)。香港資歷級別通用指標。取自
http://www.hkqf.gov.hk/media/HKQF_GLD.pdf
教育部(1996)。教育部大學教育評鑑計畫草案。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2001)。大學教育政策白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2007)。教育部獎勵大學教學卓越計畫之區域教學資源中心計
畫。取自http://www.csal.fcu.edu.tw/Edu/program_start-2.asp
教育部(2008)。第二期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/list/B0039/附件-2第二期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫980312-.pdf
教育部(2012a)。大專校院數統計。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview03.xls
教育部(2012b)。大專校院概況。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview01.xls
教育部(2012c)。大學聯招(指考)錄取率。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview09.xls
教育部(2012d)。各級教育學生在學率。取自
http://140.111.34.54/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=24281
教育基本法(1999年6月23日)。
徐昌慧(2008)。澳洲技職教育與訓練之品質保證機制。評鑑雙月刊,
16。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/11/01/771.aspx
徐聯恩、林明吟(2005)。成果導向教育(OBE)的教育改革及其在美國
實踐的經驗。教育政策論壇,8(2),55-74。
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2010)。100年度大學校院校務評鑑
實施計畫。臺北市:財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2011)。第二週期大學校院系所評鑑
實施計畫。臺北市:財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2011)。「基本素養」與「核心能力」
不同嗎?評鑑雙月刊,34。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/11/01/5047.aspx
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會編輯部(2012)。第二週期系所評鑑 3
月啟航。評鑑雙月刊,36。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/03/01/5523.aspx
張保隆(2010)。逢甲大學落實與深化教學品保機制之具體作法。評鑑雙月
刊,26。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/07/01/3103.aspx
張景媛(1992)。教學評量與教學輔導。出自國立臺灣師範大學學術研究
委員會主編,教學評量研究,31-43。臺北:五南。
張鈿富(1996)。教育政策分析:理論與實務。台北:五南。
張雪梅、彭森明主編(2009)。序言:大學生的學習歷程與高教品質。台灣
大學生的學習歷程與表現,1-23。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑
與發展研究中心。
陳琦媛(2011)。大學生學習成效評量之初探。教育研究月刊,207,32-41。
陳漢強(1997)。大學評鑑。3-39。臺北市:五南。
逢甲大學(無日期)。逢甲大學選課地圖。取自
http://curriculummapping.fcu.edu.tw/about.do
彭森明(1996)。教育部委託專案研究計畫成果報告:大學教師評鑑機
制之研究。取自http://www.edu.tw/files/bulletin/B0018/teacher_judge.pdf
彭森明(2008)。以學生評鑑確保大學生優良素質:美國策略。教育研究
與發展,4(3),1-20。
彭森明(2008)。將學生學習成果納入大學評鑑指標項目之必要性與可行
性。
評鑑雙月刊,30。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/09/01/720.aspx
彭森明(2008)。將學生學習成果納入大學評鑑指標項目之必要性與可行性。評鑑雙月刊,15。http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/09/01/720.aspx
彭森明(2010)。大學生學習成果評量:理論、實務與應用。臺北:高
等教育出版社。
黃淑玲(2010)。學其所做、做其所學:以CHEA傑出校院學生學習成效執
行獎為例。評鑑雙月刊,25。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/05/01/2869.aspx
黃淑玲、池俊吉(2010)。如何評估學生學習成效—以加州州立大學長灘分
校系所訪視與測量中心之經驗為例。評鑑雙月刊,28,9-12。
楊玉惠(2003)。大學學門評鑑制度規劃之研究(碩士論文)。取自
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22091TMTC0576032%22.&searchmode=basic
楊國賜(2005)。我國大學自我評鑑機制與運作之探討。台灣教育,632,
2-12。
楊瑩(2008)。我國高等教育評薦制度建構的省思。教育研究月刊,168,
5-20。
楊瑩(2010)。兩岸四地高等教育評鑑制度。臺北:財團法人高等教育評
鑑中心基金會。
楊瑩(2011)。以學生學習成效為評量重點的歐盟高等教育品質保證政策。
評鑑雙月刊,30。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/03/01/4164.aspx
廖培瑜(2001)。企業訓練線上學習成效評量之研究(碩士論文)。取自
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22090NTNU0036003%22.&searchmode=basic
劉維琪(2010)。推動學生學習成果評量的機制。評鑑雙月刊,26。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/07/01/3078.aspx
臺灣大學(2008)。臺灣大學課程地圖。取自
http://coursemap.aca.ntu.edu.tw/course_map_all/
簡茂發(1999)。教學評量原理與方法。出自黃光雄主編,教學原理,
393-423。台北:師大書苑。
蕭玉真(2011)。提升學生學習成效:淺談大學教學卓越計畫。評鑑雙月
刊,31。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/05/01/4374.aspx
蘇錦麗(2009)。「大學校院學生學習成果評估」相關內涵分析。評鑑雙月
刊,21,58-62。
蘇錦麗(2010)。確保「學生評鑑」專業知能提升學生學習成效。評鑑雙月
刊,24。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/03/01/2693.aspx21
蘇錦麗(2011)。評分量尺(rubrics)在大學生學習成效評估之運用。教育
研究月刊,207,18-31。

二、英文部分
Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for application. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass publishers.
Association of American Colleges and Universities[AAC&U] (2009). Assessing
Learning Outcomes: Lessons from AAC&U`s VALUE Project. From
http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi09/documents/Peer_Review_Winter_2009.pdf
Association of American Colleges and Universities[AAC&U] (2011). The
LEAP Vision for Learning: Outcomes, Practices, Impact, and Employers`
Views. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/leap_vision_summary.pdf
Australian Qualifications Framework Council[AQFC] (2011). Australian
Qualifications Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/Handbook/AustQuals%20FrmwrkFirstEditionJuly2011_FINAL.pdf
Bigalke & D. E. Neubauer (Eds.).(2009). Public good and quality in higher
education in Asia Pacific. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan Press.
doi:10.1057/9780230100466
Brandt, R. (1993). On outcome-based education: A conversation with Bill
Spady. Educational Leadership, 50 (4), 66-70.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making
methods and application. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag
Council for Aid to Education[CAE] (n.d.). About CAE. Retrieved from
http://www.cae.org/content/about.htm
Council for Aid to Education[CAE] (2006). Frequency Asked Technical
Questions 2007-2008. Retrieved from
http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/CLA_Technical_FAQs.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation[CHEA] (2006). Accreditation and
accountability: A CHEA special report. Retrieved from
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/pub/departments/aa/pdf/accreditation_and_accountability.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation[CHEA] (2012). Effective
Istitutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes: CHEA award
recipients. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/chea%20award/CHEA_Awards_All.html
Davison, M. L. (1983). Multidimensional indicators and management of quality
in education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED333575)
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education[ENQA]
(2008). Learning outcomes: Common framework – different approaches to
evaluation learning outcomes in the Nordic countries. Retrieved from
http://www.enqa.eu/files/NOQA%20report_occasional%20papers%2015.pdf
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education[ENQA]
(2009a). 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. Retrieved from
http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_position_paper%20(3).pdf
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education[ENQA]
(2009b). The Bologna Process 2020 - The European Higher Education
Area in the new decade. Paper presented at the Communiqué of the
Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education,
Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve. Retrieved from
http://www.enqa.eu/files/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009.pdf
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[CEDEFOP]
(2008). The shift to learning outcomes: Conceptual, political
and practical
developments in Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/Files/4079_EN.PDF
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[ECDVT] (2008).
The shift to learning outcomes:Conceptual, political
and practical
developments in Europe. Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[ECDVT]
(2009).The shift to learning outcomes: Policies and practices in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission[EC](2010). The European Qualifications
framework for lifelong learning. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/leaflet_en.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed
point of departure. CHEA occasional paper. Washington D.C.: Council for
Higher Education Accreditation.
Harden, R. M., Crosby, J. R., & Davis, M. H. (1999). AMEE education guide
No.14 part1: Outcome-based education: An introduction to outcome-based
education. Medical Teacher, 21 (1), 7-14. doi:10.1080/01421599979969
Holmes, G., & Hooper, N. (2000). Core competence and education. Higher
Education, 40(3), 247-258. doi:10.1023/A:1004003032197
Hou, Y. C.(2011). Quality assurance ata distance: International Accreditation in
Taiwan Higher Education. Higher Education, 61(2), 179-191.
doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9331-9
Hudspeth, D. (1997). Testing learner outcomes in web-based instruction. In B.
H. Khan (ed.), Web-based Instruction (pp. 353-356). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation[JCSEE] (2003). The
student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluations of students.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
King, J. A., & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education?
Educational Leadership,49, 73-75.
Ko, E. (2011). Five Faces of Innovation in Higher Education: Enhancing
Student Learning with Outcomebased Approaches. Workshop conducted
by Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan,
Taipei.
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment[NILOA](2011). About us.
Retrieved from http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/AboutUs.html
New Zealand Qualifications Authority[NZQA] (2011). Requirements for listing
and maintaining qualifications on the New Zealand Qualifications
Framework. Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Studying-in-NZ/New-Zealand-Qualification-Framework/requirements-nzqf.pdf
Nick Harries, B. N., Helle, E., Hopbach, A., Maguire, B., Michalk, B.,
Rozsnyai, C., & Zaharia, S, E. (2008). Quality assurance and
qualifications frameworks. Helsinki, Maryland: ENQA.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2011).
Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes [AHELO]. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/49/45755875.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2007).
Qualifications systems: Bridges to lifelong learning. Retrieved from
http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9107031E.pdf
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA] (2012). UK Quality
Code for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx
Smith, S. R., & Dollase, R. (1999). AMEE education guide No.14 part2:
Outcome-based education: Planning, implementing and evaluating a
competency-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 21 (1), 15-22.
doi:10.1080/01421599979978
South African Qualifications Authority[SAQA](2005). Developing Learning
Programmes for NQF-registered Qualifications and Unit Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/critguide/dlp/part1.pdf
Spady, W. (1993). “Outcome-Based Education “ (Workshop Report No. 5).
Belconnen, ACT:Australian Curriculum Studies Association, 19.
Spady, W. G. (1981). Outcome-based instructional management: A sociological
perspective. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring
and reform. Educational Leadership, 46 (2), 4-8.
Trochim, M. K. & Linton, R. (1986).Conceptualization for evaluation and
planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 189-308.
doi:10.1016/0149-7189(86)90044-3
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher
Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education
UCLA for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (2009).
Educational effectiveness review report. Retrieved from http://www.wasc.ucla.edu/EER_Final.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO](2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of
basic terms and definitions. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001346/134621e.pdf
University of California, Los Angeles[UCLA] (2009). Guidelines for
developing and assessing student learning outcomes for undergraduate
majors. Retrieved from http://www.wasc.ucla.edu/eer_endnotes/Learning_Outcomes_Guidelines.pdf
Wolf, R. A. (2009). Future directions for American higher education
accreditation. In T. W. Bigalke & D/ E. Neubauer (Eds.), Public good and
quality in higher education in Asia Pacific . New York, NY: Palgrave,
MacMillan Press. doi:10.1057/9780230100466
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育行政與政策研究所
98171002
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0981710021
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 吳政達zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) 田宜庭zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 田宜庭zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-七月-2013 18:07:21 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-七月-2013 18:07:21 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-七月-2013 18:07:21 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0981710021en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58740-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 教育行政與政策研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 98171002zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在建構我國大學學生學習成效評量指標,以供高等教育機構做為實施大學學生學習成效評量之參考。研究方法部分,先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學學生學習成效之60項評量指標,並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確立。接著運用多元度量法和集群分析法整合高等教育專家學者及大學行政主管對指標的分類以建構評量構面,並利用模糊德菲術整合高等教育專家學者及大學行政主管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,完成我國大學學生學習成效評量指標系統。根據研究結果與分析,歸納主要結論及建議如下:
一、結論
(一)本研究確立我國大學學生學習成效評量指標,建構出六大構面共28項指標。指標六大構面依權重高低依序為:「人際互動與社會適應」構面(佔21.54%)、「思考與創新」構面(佔17.97%)、「應用與執行」構面(佔17.87%)、「人文關懷與社會責任」構面(佔17.09%)、「溝通能力」構面(佔14.45%)、「知識與技能」構面(佔11.08%)。
(二)「知識與技能」構面下,權重最重的指標依次為:1-1學科專業知識(佔4.01%);1-2專業應用技術(佔3.68%)。
(三)「思考與創新」構面下,權重最重的指標依次為:2-4問題解決能力(佔4.06%);2-5邏輯分析能力(佔3.54%)。
(四)「應用與執行」構面權重最重的指標依次為:3-1計畫與組織能力(佔3.86%);3-4整合應用能力(佔3.64%)。
(五)「溝通能力」構面權重最重的指標依次為:4-3本國語文能力(佔3.86%);4-2書面溝通能力(佔3.58%)。
(六)「人際互動與社會適應」構面權重最重的指標依次為:5-2團隊合作能力(佔3.81%);5-4自我管理能力(佔3.70%)。
(七)「人文關懷與社會責任」構面權重最重的指標依次為:6-1社會關懷(佔3.60%);6-2人文素養(佔3.52%)。

二、建議
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:制訂全國性資歷架構;發展大學生學習成效評量。
(二)對大學行政主管之建議:連結課程地圖與職涯發展;建置完善事證蒐集系統。
(三)對大學學生之建議:訂定個人學習發展計畫;充分運用個人學習歷程檔案自我行銷。
(四)對未來研究之建議:發展效用總值更高之指標;建構大學個別學門學習成效指標;持續針對大學學生學習成效評量指標更新。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this study is to construct the indicators of learning outcomes assessment for university students in Taiwan. As for research methods, through literature review, 60 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of student learning outcomes indicators for university students 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�� opinions on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection.
At the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect experts and university administrative directors�� opinions about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of student learning outcomes indicators. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number��s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, indicators system of learning outcomes assessment for university students was constructed. The main conclusions and suggestions are as follows:

1. Indicators system of learning outcomes assessment for university students consists of 6 dimensions and 28 indicators in total. The 6 dimensions are: knowledge and skills (accounts for 11.08%), critical thinking and creative thinking (accounts for 17.97%), application and implementation (accounts for 17.87%), communication (accounts for 14.45%), interpersonal interaction and social adaptation (accounts for 21.54%), and humanistic care (accounts for 17.09%).
2. In the dimension of knowledge and skills, the indicator of disciplinary expertise accounts for the most part (4.01%), and then the indicator of disciplinary skills accounts for 3.68%.
3. In the dimension of critical thinking and creative thinking, the indicator of problem-solving accounts the most (4.06%), and the indicator of logical analysis accounts for 3.54%.
4. In the dimension of application and implementation, the indicator of planning and organization accounts the most (3.86%), and the indicator of integrated application accounts for 3.64%.
5. In the dimension of communication, the indicator of native language accounts the most (3.86%), and the indicator of written communication accounts for 3.58%.
6. In the dimension of interpersonal interaction and social adaptation, the indicator of team work accounts the most (3.81%), and the indicator of self-management accounts for 3.70%.
7. In the dimension of humanistic care, the indicator of social care accounts the most (3.60%), and the indicator of humanistic literacy accounts for 3.52%.

According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed:
1. Suggestions for higher education administrators: construct national qualification framework and develop learning outcomes assessment for university students.
2. Suggestions for administrative directors of university: connect curriculum mapping with career development; construct evidence-gathering system.
3. Suggestions for students of university: develop personal learning and development plans; make full use of personal learning portfolios.
4. Suggestions for further study: develop indicators which have higher total utility; construct indicators of learning outcomes for individual academy, and continuously update the indicators of learning outcomes assessment for university students.
en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第三節 待答問題 6
第四節 重要名詞釋義 7
第五節 研究範圍與限制 8
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 大學學生學習成效評量 9
第二節 國際上大學學生學習成效評量指標探討 27
第三節 國內大學學生學習成效評量指標探討 46
第三章 研究設計與實施 67
第一節 研究流程 67
第二節 研究對象 69
第三節 研究方法 73
第四節 資料處理與統計分析 80
第四章 研究分析結果與建議 81
第一節 我國大學學生學習成效指標建構專家問卷結果 81
第二節 模糊德菲問卷結果分析 85
第三節 概念構圖問卷結果分析 90
第五章 結論與建議 99
第一節 結論 99
第二節 建議 102
參考文獻 105
zh_TW
dc.format.extent 9347947 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0981710021en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 高等教育評鑑zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學生學習成效評量zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 大學學生學習成效指標zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) higher education evaluationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) student learning outcomes assessmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) student learning outcomes indicatorsen_US
dc.title (題名) 我國大學學生學習成效指標建構之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Study of Indicators Construction of Learning Outcomes Assessment for University Students in Taiwan.en_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分
大學法(2005年12月28日)。

大學評鑑辦法(2007年1月9日)。
王保進(2010a)。導入品質保證內涵與重視學生學習成效之大學校務評鑑。
評鑑雙月刊,24。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/03/01/2709.aspx
王保進(2010b)。校務評鑑對學生學習成效機制自我評鑑之作業方向。評
鑑雙月刊,27。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/09/01/3324.aspx
王保進(2010c)。建立學生學習成效評估機制之大學校務評鑑。評鑑雙月
刊,26。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/07/01/3162.aspx
王保進(2011a)。從評鑑取向探討學生學習成效品質保證機制之內涵。教
育研究月刊,207,5-17。
王保進(2011b)。校務評鑑對學生學習成效評鑑機制自我評鑑之作業方向。
評鑑雙月刊,27。取自
http://staffweb.ncnu.edu.tw/hdcheng/evaluation/100ecaluation/27_5-2_7-13.pdf
王保進(2012a)。第二週期系所評鑑認可關鍵要素解析。評鑑雙月刊,35。
取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/01/01/5302.aspx
王保進(2012b)。大學校院校務評鑑結果解讀。評鑑雙月刊,35。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/01/01/5249.aspx
王玉麟(2011)。以核心能力為基礎織學生學習成效評量機制:以中央大學
為例。教育研究月刊,207,42-52。
王金龍(2010)。銘傳大學學習成果評量推動經驗分享。評鑑雙月刊,28。
取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/11/01/3698.aspx
中山大學(2010)。中山大學歷程檔案系統。取自
http://ep.oaa.nsysu.edu.tw/Login.php?system=ep#
中央大學(無日期)。中大學生基本素養及核心能力架構。取自
http://english.ncu.edu.tw/word/中大學生基本素養及核心能力架構.doc
北一區區域教學資源中心(2011)。學生學習成效評估機制推動經驗分享座
談會。北一區區域教學資源中心電子報,12。取自
http://nttlc.scu.edu.tw/ct.aspx?xItem=1698724&CtNode=1405&mp=16
池俊吉(2011a)。大學校院推動學習成效為本教育應有之認知與作為。評
鑑雙月刊,33。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/09/01/4825.aspx
池俊吉(2011b)。香港資歷架構下之學生學習成效評估機制。評鑑雙月刊,
32。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/07/01/4591.aspx
成功大學(2009)。成功大學課程地圖。取自
http://class-qry.acad.ncku.edu.tw/crm/course_map/index.php
米澤彰純、森利枝著、許媛翔譯(2009)。學習成效與品質保證:日本高等教
育面臨的挑戰。評鑑雙月刊,20,46-48。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/images/epaper_heeact_edu_tw/2009_0701_No20/PDF_20/20_10-2_46-48.pdf
何希慧(2007)。化被動為主動:國外一流大學提升學生學習成效五妙方。
評鑑雙月刊,6。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2007/03/09/172.aspx
李秉乾(2011)。逢甲大學以學生學習成效為主體之教學品質保證機制。評
鑑雙月刊,34。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/11/01/5024.aspx
李隆生(2010)。評鑑小辭典:100年度大學校務評鑑重點說明。評鑑雙月
刊,27。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/09/01/3329.aspx
吳京玲(2011)。建構大學生核心能力架構之研究:分析學術界與產業界的
觀點。通識教育學刊,7,9-38。
吳政達、郭昭佑(1997)。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應
用。教育與心理研究,20(2),217-242。
吳政達(2008)。教育政策分析:概念、方法與運用。臺北:高等教育文
化事業有限公司。
余民寧(1997)。有意義的學習-概念構圖之研究。臺北:商鼎。
阮亨中、吳柏林(2000)。模糊數學與統計應用。臺北:俊傑。
吳清山、王令宜(2006)。臺灣地區的大學評鑑:回顧與展望。「2006海峽
兩岸教育發展與改革」學術研討會發表之論文。臺北市:國立政治
大學。
吳清山、王令宜(2007)。我國大學評鑑:挑戰、因應策略與發展方向。課
程與教學季刊,10(4),15-30。
吳清山(2010)。高等教育評鑑議題研究。臺北市:高等教育。
吳清山(2011)。我國百年教育回顧與展望:我國大學評鑑的回顧與展
望。取自http://data.nioerar.edu.tw/public/Data/191518565171.pdf
東吳大學(2011)。東吳大學學生e-portfolio簡介。取自
http://www.scu.edu.tw/career/scuepmenu/cap-intro.html
侯永琪(2009)。亞太各國建構資歷架構的發展。評鑑雙月刊,19。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2009/05/01/1607.aspx
侯永琪與Woodhouse(2010)。學習成效評估之國際發展。評鑑雙月刊,
27。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/09/01/3341.aspx
侯永琪、蔡小婷(2011)。亞太國家以學生學習成效為本之校務評鑑—以紐
西蘭與香港為例。評鑑雙月刊,30。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/03/01/4152.aspx
香港教育局(2008)。香港資歷級別通用指標。取自
http://www.hkqf.gov.hk/media/HKQF_GLD.pdf
教育部(1996)。教育部大學教育評鑑計畫草案。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2001)。大學教育政策白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2007)。教育部獎勵大學教學卓越計畫之區域教學資源中心計
畫。取自http://www.csal.fcu.edu.tw/Edu/program_start-2.asp
教育部(2008)。第二期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/list/B0039/附件-2第二期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫980312-.pdf
教育部(2012a)。大專校院數統計。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview03.xls
教育部(2012b)。大專校院概況。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview01.xls
教育部(2012c)。大學聯招(指考)錄取率。取自
http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview09.xls
教育部(2012d)。各級教育學生在學率。取自
http://140.111.34.54/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=24281
教育基本法(1999年6月23日)。
徐昌慧(2008)。澳洲技職教育與訓練之品質保證機制。評鑑雙月刊,
16。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/11/01/771.aspx
徐聯恩、林明吟(2005)。成果導向教育(OBE)的教育改革及其在美國
實踐的經驗。教育政策論壇,8(2),55-74。
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2010)。100年度大學校院校務評鑑
實施計畫。臺北市:財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2011)。第二週期大學校院系所評鑑
實施計畫。臺北市:財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會(2011)。「基本素養」與「核心能力」
不同嗎?評鑑雙月刊,34。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/11/01/5047.aspx
財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會編輯部(2012)。第二週期系所評鑑 3
月啟航。評鑑雙月刊,36。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2012/03/01/5523.aspx
張保隆(2010)。逢甲大學落實與深化教學品保機制之具體作法。評鑑雙月
刊,26。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/07/01/3103.aspx
張景媛(1992)。教學評量與教學輔導。出自國立臺灣師範大學學術研究
委員會主編,教學評量研究,31-43。臺北:五南。
張鈿富(1996)。教育政策分析:理論與實務。台北:五南。
張雪梅、彭森明主編(2009)。序言:大學生的學習歷程與高教品質。台灣
大學生的學習歷程與表現,1-23。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑
與發展研究中心。
陳琦媛(2011)。大學生學習成效評量之初探。教育研究月刊,207,32-41。
陳漢強(1997)。大學評鑑。3-39。臺北市:五南。
逢甲大學(無日期)。逢甲大學選課地圖。取自
http://curriculummapping.fcu.edu.tw/about.do
彭森明(1996)。教育部委託專案研究計畫成果報告:大學教師評鑑機
制之研究。取自http://www.edu.tw/files/bulletin/B0018/teacher_judge.pdf
彭森明(2008)。以學生評鑑確保大學生優良素質:美國策略。教育研究
與發展,4(3),1-20。
彭森明(2008)。將學生學習成果納入大學評鑑指標項目之必要性與可行
性。
評鑑雙月刊,30。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/09/01/720.aspx
彭森明(2008)。將學生學習成果納入大學評鑑指標項目之必要性與可行性。評鑑雙月刊,15。http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2008/09/01/720.aspx
彭森明(2010)。大學生學習成果評量:理論、實務與應用。臺北:高
等教育出版社。
黃淑玲(2010)。學其所做、做其所學:以CHEA傑出校院學生學習成效執
行獎為例。評鑑雙月刊,25。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/05/01/2869.aspx
黃淑玲、池俊吉(2010)。如何評估學生學習成效—以加州州立大學長灘分
校系所訪視與測量中心之經驗為例。評鑑雙月刊,28,9-12。
楊玉惠(2003)。大學學門評鑑制度規劃之研究(碩士論文)。取自
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22091TMTC0576032%22.&searchmode=basic
楊國賜(2005)。我國大學自我評鑑機制與運作之探討。台灣教育,632,
2-12。
楊瑩(2008)。我國高等教育評薦制度建構的省思。教育研究月刊,168,
5-20。
楊瑩(2010)。兩岸四地高等教育評鑑制度。臺北:財團法人高等教育評
鑑中心基金會。
楊瑩(2011)。以學生學習成效為評量重點的歐盟高等教育品質保證政策。
評鑑雙月刊,30。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/03/01/4164.aspx
廖培瑜(2001)。企業訓練線上學習成效評量之研究(碩士論文)。取自
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22090NTNU0036003%22.&searchmode=basic
劉維琪(2010)。推動學生學習成果評量的機制。評鑑雙月刊,26。取自
http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/07/01/3078.aspx
臺灣大學(2008)。臺灣大學課程地圖。取自
http://coursemap.aca.ntu.edu.tw/course_map_all/
簡茂發(1999)。教學評量原理與方法。出自黃光雄主編,教學原理,
393-423。台北:師大書苑。
蕭玉真(2011)。提升學生學習成效:淺談大學教學卓越計畫。評鑑雙月
刊,31。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2011/05/01/4374.aspx
蘇錦麗(2009)。「大學校院學生學習成果評估」相關內涵分析。評鑑雙月
刊,21,58-62。
蘇錦麗(2010)。確保「學生評鑑」專業知能提升學生學習成效。評鑑雙月
刊,24。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2010/03/01/2693.aspx21
蘇錦麗(2011)。評分量尺(rubrics)在大學生學習成效評估之運用。教育
研究月刊,207,18-31。

二、英文部分
Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for application. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass publishers.
Association of American Colleges and Universities[AAC&U] (2009). Assessing
Learning Outcomes: Lessons from AAC&U`s VALUE Project. From
http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi09/documents/Peer_Review_Winter_2009.pdf
Association of American Colleges and Universities[AAC&U] (2011). The
LEAP Vision for Learning: Outcomes, Practices, Impact, and Employers`
Views. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/leap_vision_summary.pdf
Australian Qualifications Framework Council[AQFC] (2011). Australian
Qualifications Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/Handbook/AustQuals%20FrmwrkFirstEditionJuly2011_FINAL.pdf
Bigalke & D. E. Neubauer (Eds.).(2009). Public good and quality in higher
education in Asia Pacific. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan Press.
doi:10.1057/9780230100466
Brandt, R. (1993). On outcome-based education: A conversation with Bill
Spady. Educational Leadership, 50 (4), 66-70.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making
methods and application. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag
Council for Aid to Education[CAE] (n.d.). About CAE. Retrieved from
http://www.cae.org/content/about.htm
Council for Aid to Education[CAE] (2006). Frequency Asked Technical
Questions 2007-2008. Retrieved from
http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/CLA_Technical_FAQs.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation[CHEA] (2006). Accreditation and
accountability: A CHEA special report. Retrieved from
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/pub/departments/aa/pdf/accreditation_and_accountability.pdf
Council for Higher Education Accreditation[CHEA] (2012). Effective
Istitutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes: CHEA award
recipients. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/chea%20award/CHEA_Awards_All.html
Davison, M. L. (1983). Multidimensional indicators and management of quality
in education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED333575)
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education[ENQA]
(2008). Learning outcomes: Common framework – different approaches to
evaluation learning outcomes in the Nordic countries. Retrieved from
http://www.enqa.eu/files/NOQA%20report_occasional%20papers%2015.pdf
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education[ENQA]
(2009a). 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. Retrieved from
http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_position_paper%20(3).pdf
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education[ENQA]
(2009b). The Bologna Process 2020 - The European Higher Education
Area in the new decade. Paper presented at the Communiqué of the
Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education,
Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve. Retrieved from
http://www.enqa.eu/files/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009.pdf
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[CEDEFOP]
(2008). The shift to learning outcomes: Conceptual, political
and practical
developments in Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/Files/4079_EN.PDF
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[ECDVT] (2008).
The shift to learning outcomes:Conceptual, political
and practical
developments in Europe. Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[ECDVT]
(2009).The shift to learning outcomes: Policies and practices in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission[EC](2010). The European Qualifications
framework for lifelong learning. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/leaflet_en.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2001). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed
point of departure. CHEA occasional paper. Washington D.C.: Council for
Higher Education Accreditation.
Harden, R. M., Crosby, J. R., & Davis, M. H. (1999). AMEE education guide
No.14 part1: Outcome-based education: An introduction to outcome-based
education. Medical Teacher, 21 (1), 7-14. doi:10.1080/01421599979969
Holmes, G., & Hooper, N. (2000). Core competence and education. Higher
Education, 40(3), 247-258. doi:10.1023/A:1004003032197
Hou, Y. C.(2011). Quality assurance ata distance: International Accreditation in
Taiwan Higher Education. Higher Education, 61(2), 179-191.
doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9331-9
Hudspeth, D. (1997). Testing learner outcomes in web-based instruction. In B.
H. Khan (ed.), Web-based Instruction (pp. 353-356). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation[JCSEE] (2003). The
student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluations of students.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
King, J. A., & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education?
Educational Leadership,49, 73-75.
Ko, E. (2011). Five Faces of Innovation in Higher Education: Enhancing
Student Learning with Outcomebased Approaches. Workshop conducted
by Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan,
Taipei.
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment[NILOA](2011). About us.
Retrieved from http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/AboutUs.html
New Zealand Qualifications Authority[NZQA] (2011). Requirements for listing
and maintaining qualifications on the New Zealand Qualifications
Framework. Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Studying-in-NZ/New-Zealand-Qualification-Framework/requirements-nzqf.pdf
Nick Harries, B. N., Helle, E., Hopbach, A., Maguire, B., Michalk, B.,
Rozsnyai, C., & Zaharia, S, E. (2008). Quality assurance and
qualifications frameworks. Helsinki, Maryland: ENQA.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2011).
Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes [AHELO]. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/49/45755875.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development[OECD] (2007).
Qualifications systems: Bridges to lifelong learning. Retrieved from
http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9107031E.pdf
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA] (2012). UK Quality
Code for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx
Smith, S. R., & Dollase, R. (1999). AMEE education guide No.14 part2:
Outcome-based education: Planning, implementing and evaluating a
competency-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 21 (1), 15-22.
doi:10.1080/01421599979978
South African Qualifications Authority[SAQA](2005). Developing Learning
Programmes for NQF-registered Qualifications and Unit Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/critguide/dlp/part1.pdf
Spady, W. (1993). “Outcome-Based Education “ (Workshop Report No. 5).
Belconnen, ACT:Australian Curriculum Studies Association, 19.
Spady, W. G. (1981). Outcome-based instructional management: A sociological
perspective. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring
and reform. Educational Leadership, 46 (2), 4-8.
Trochim, M. K. & Linton, R. (1986).Conceptualization for evaluation and
planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 189-308.
doi:10.1016/0149-7189(86)90044-3
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher
Education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education
UCLA for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (2009).
Educational effectiveness review report. Retrieved from http://www.wasc.ucla.edu/EER_Final.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO](2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of
basic terms and definitions. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001346/134621e.pdf
University of California, Los Angeles[UCLA] (2009). Guidelines for
developing and assessing student learning outcomes for undergraduate
majors. Retrieved from http://www.wasc.ucla.edu/eer_endnotes/Learning_Outcomes_Guidelines.pdf
Wolf, R. A. (2009). Future directions for American higher education
accreditation. In T. W. Bigalke & D/ E. Neubauer (Eds.), Public good and
quality in higher education in Asia Pacific . New York, NY: Palgrave,
MacMillan Press. doi:10.1057/9780230100466
zh_TW