請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/25368
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 傅祖壇(Tsu-Tan Fu) | |
dc.contributor.author | Wen-Chi Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳文琦 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T06:10:42Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-07-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-07-08 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 李東杰,2001。「臺灣製造業中小企業考量地區特性影響下技術效率與生產力的
變化:隨機性統計邊界法與包絡分析法之比較」。博士論文,東吳大學經濟 學研究所。 林容萱,2003。「台灣地區科技大學效率性之分析:資料包絡分析法的應用」,『國 民教育研究集刊』。9期,179-205。 林浩明,2002。「資料包絡分析法之應用―以某國立工業高職各科之綜合績效評 估為例」。碩士論文,大葉大學工業工程學研究所。 林騰蛟,2001。「高等技職教育的定位與發展」,『技術及職業教育』。66期,15-22。 高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,2003。『管理績效評估-資料包絡分析法』。 台北:華泰。 許舒翔、周春美、沈健華,2002。「技職院校教育行銷策略之探討」,『技術及職 業教育雙月刊』。69期,9-13。 張育瑄,2005。「職場表現、學生滿意度與商學院各系之效率分析」。碩士論文, 臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所。 張春興,1996。『教育心理學:三化取向的理論與實踐(修訂版)』。台北:東華。 張瑞濱,2003。「我國私立技術學院經營效率之研究」。博士論文,中華大學工程 管理研究所。 教育部技職司,2006。取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/E0001/EDUION001/menu01/sub04/01040007b2.htm 教育部統計處,2006。『中華民國大專院校概況統計』。台北:教育部統計處。 郭峻韶,2003。「台灣地區公私立大學院校之效率差異研究-應用調整環境變數 與干擾之資料包絡法」。碩士論文,東吳大學會計研究所.。 郭振雄,2000。「多重生產程序之績效評估:我國大學院校效率衡量」。博士論文, 臺灣大學會計學研究所。 劉明超,2000。「台灣地區高級職業學校教育管理效率評估之研究-DEA模式之 應用分析」。碩士論文,國立暨南大學教育政策與行政研究所。 蔡淑如,2003。「以資料包絡分析法(DEA)評估科技大學之辦學績效」。碩士論文, 朝陽科技大學工業工程與管理研究所。 盧永祥,2005。「臺灣高等技職院校成本結構與經營效率之分析-考量產出品質 及組織特性」。博士論文,國立臺灣大學農業經濟研究所。 Aigner, D. J., C. A. K. Lovell and P. Schmidt, 1977. “Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Function Models,” Journal of Econometrics.6:21-37. Andersen , P. and Petersen ,N.C. ,1993 .“A Procedure for Ranking Efficiency Units in Data Envelopment Analysis,” Management Science .39 :1261-1264. Bloom, B. S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives : The Classification of educational goals. New York, Colo.:Mckay Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, 1978. “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Unit,’’ European Journal of Operational Research. 2:429-444. Coelli, T., P. Rao, and G.. Battese, 1998. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Norwell, M.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Colbert, A., R.R. Levary, and M. C. Shaner, 2000. “Determinimg the relative efficiency of MBA programs using DEA,”European Journal of Operational Research.125:656-669. Doyle, J and Green, R.(1994b) “Efficiency and Cross Efficiency in DEA: Derivations, Meanings and Uses,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(5), pp567-578. Fried, H. O., C. A. K. Lovell, S. S. Schmidt and S. Yaisawarng , 2002. “Accounting for Environmental Effects and Statistical Noise in Data Envelopment Analysis,’’ Journal of Productivity Analysis. 17:157-174. Johnes, G. and J. Johnes, 1993.”Measuring the Research Performance of UK Economics Departments: An Application of data Envelopment Analysis,”Oxford Economics Papers.45:332-347. Joumady O.and C. Ris , 2005. “Performance in European higher education: A non-parametric production frontier approach,” Education Economics. 13(2): 189 - 205 Kao, C. (1994). 'Evaluation of junior colleges of technology: The Taiwan case', European Journal of Operational Research . 72: 43-51. Lovell, C. A. K., L. C. Walters, and L. L. Wood, 1994. “Stratified models of education production using modified DEA and regression analysis,” In Data Envelopment Analysis :Theory , Methodology and Applications, Edited by A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin, L. M. Seiford. Boston, Colo.:Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lovell, C.A.K. and A.P.B. Rouse ,2003. “Equivalent standard DEA models to provide super-efficiency scores,”Journal of the Operational Research Society.54: 101-108. Meeusen, W. and J. Broeck, 1977. “Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error,” International Economic Review. 18:435- 444. Ryan, P.,2001 “The school -to-work transition:a cross-national perspective, ”Journal of Economic Literature. 39:1-37 Sexton, T.R., Silkman, R.H. and Hoogan, A.J., (1986). “Data Envelopment Analysis: critique and extensions. In Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis. (R. H. Silkman, Ed.) 73-104. Simpson, E. J. ,1972. The classification of educational objectives : Psychomotor Domain. Urbana, I1:University of Illiois Press. Tam, M. ,2002.”Impact on student Growth :a quality measure?” Journal of Higher Education Policy and management.24(2):211-218 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/25368 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 國內高等技職教育技職院校數量、科系大幅度的擴增,而其所增加招收的學生數量更極為可觀,再加上我國的人口出生人數下降,以及受國內高中職比例調整的影響,直接影響到專科學校的招生。因此學生未來在選擇就讀學校時將有更多的機會,如何慎選一所適合自己的學校,將是一門重要的課題。
然而,坊間似乎並未曾提供任何商業類專科學校的相關選校資訊,因此本研究針對26所台灣技職院校商學院的專科部為研究對象,探討畢業生就業表現及在校時多元能力培育能力之績效評估,並以三階段 DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis,資料包絡法),分析考量環境變數後對於學校績效之影響,並採用資料包絡法(Data Envelopment Analysis)、交叉效率(cross efficiency,CDEA)、超級效率(Super efficiency,SDEA)之評估方法進行學校表現評估,並藉由不同的學校組織特性分為權屬別、學制別、專業導向,從這三類之特性做進一步的討論。分析結果如下: 一、在三階段DEA的調整分析,公私立學校在第一次工作的薪資調整前與調整後並無太大的差異。在目前薪資中,未調整前以公立學校表現較好,經過調整後私立學校在目前薪資部份表現較佳;在學制別的部份,未調整前的第一次工作的起薪及目前薪資,技職院校皆比科技院校高,調整之後的第一次工作薪資,二者差異不大,但就目前薪資來看,技職院校高於科技大學;商科與工科導向學校在第一次工作的起薪調整前後皆沒太大的差距,不過在未調整前的目前薪資部份,商科導向較高於工科導向的學校,而調整之後則差距不大。 二、從「認知、技能、情意」能力績效中,可得知三種DEA方法求出的結果相當一致,公立學校在三種DEA方法下的績效皆比私立學校好;科技大學在這三種能力績效皆高於技職院校;在專業導向上,商科導向在認知及情意能力上,績效比工科導向的學校好,而在技能部分則低於工科導向的學校。從三種方法上分析,CDEA所評估出的績效值為最低,SDEA為最低,其次為DEA。 三、 以在校時多元能力培育中來看,公立學校表現較好且標準差較小;科技大學表現比技術學院優秀;商科導向除了CDEA表現較優異外,DEA和SDEA的績效值皆比工科導向學校差。以三個模型來看,DEA在在校時多元能力培育的部份數值較高,其次為SDEA,數值較低為CDEA。 四、在薪資調整後之就業市場表現方面,公立學校除了CDEA較低於私立學校外,其他表現皆優於私立學校。技術學院在三種不同的績效評估方法中的表現皆高於科技大學。商科導向的學校在三種績效模型的衡量表現全都高過工科導向。 五、從薪資調整前與調整後可發現,薪資調整後,每個模型的效率值皆提昇為6%左右且變異數較小,表示經環境變數對薪資的調整後,每間學校的差距不甚明顯,使每間學校效率值皆提昇,說明了調整完後的各間學校就業表現績效較為一致。 六、以全部表現來看,公立學校在全部表現中的交叉效率低於私立學校,不過整體表現還是以公立學校表現優異;在學制別部份,科技大學在DEA和SDEA模型中皆高於技術學院,技術學院則在CDEA表現較突出;商科導向的學校在DEA和CDEA優於工科導向的學校,工科導向則在SDEA表現較好。 七、從Pearson Correlation可得知,在校時多元能力培育績效的三個模型的績效評估方法差異不大。在未調整薪資的就業表現上,DEA與CDEA為高度相關,在CDEA與SDEA的部分,結果不盡相同。在調整後薪資的就業表現上,DEA與CDEA相關係數只有4成多,顯示此二種模型的效率值有明顯的不同,SDEA和DEA也只有0.527的顯著相關,CDEA和SDEA更呈現出負相關的情況,不過並無顯著。以調整前、後薪資的就業表現上做比較,調整前後的DEA、SDEA就業表現績效值並無太大的改變情況,不過在CDEA的部份相關係數只有0.694,可見經過調整前後,在交叉效率的部分二者有顯著差異。在全部績效表現部分,DEA與CDEA、DEA與SDEA只有中度相關,CDEA和SDEA相關程度更小,顯示三種模式所算出的績效值,有明顯的不同。Spearman's Correlations大致與Pearson Correlationㄧ致,但Spearman's Correlations略高於Pearson Correlation可得知經過調整之後效率值有改變但名次排序部份差異並不明顯。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The increasingly large numbers of local institutions of technology and programs of study, accompanied by the decreasing local birth rate, had directly resulted in a higher school admission rate for specialized studies. As a result, students will have more choices of school in the near future. It will also be more important for the students to carefully choose the most suitable schools for themselves.
Nevertheless, there is limited public resource of information regarding business college selection. This study is conducted based on the two-year and five-year specialized studies of 26 business colleges in Taiwan. The study will explore about fresh graduates’ job performances, as well as evaluate the performance resulted from school’s ability to develop students’ diversified skills. The analysis of effects on school performance after considering the environmental variables is done by the three staged DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis). The three evaluation methods of DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis), CDEA (cross efficiency) and SDEA (Super efficiency) are adopted for school performance evaluations. Moreover, the school organization characteristics can be classified into three different kinds of authority attributions, study systems and study subjects. Further discussions will be based on the three categories of characteristics. The results of analysis are as the following: 1.It’s been found that after the wage / salary adjustment, each model’s efficiency value all increased by about 6% with less variables. In another word, there were minor differences between schools after the wage / salary adjustment due to environmental variables. This resulted in increased efficiency value for each school, meaning the job performances of the students from different schools would be much more similar after the wage / salary adjustment. 2.By viewing from the school’s ability to develop their students’ diversified skills, it’s been found that public schools performed better with less standard deviation. Also, the performances of universities of technology were better than that of institutions of technology. More business-prone schools showed superior performance on CDEA, but these schools less well performed on DEA and SDEA comparing with engineering/science-prone schools. In general, DEA expressed higher values than SDEA on the school ability to develop diversified skills of students. CDEA showed the lowest values. 3.In regards to job performances after wage / salary adjustment, public schools performed better than private schools on all models except for CDEA. The CDEA values for institutions of technology were higher than that for universities of technology. The CDEA values for business-prone schools were also higher than that for engineering-prone schools. 4.On all performances, CDEA for public schools was lower than private schools. However, the overall performances were still better for public schools. In regards to the school systems, the DEA and SDEA models of universities of technology showed better results than institutions of technology. On the other hand, institutions of technology showed superior performance on CDEA. The DEA and CDEA performances for business-prone schools were better than engineering-prone schools, which performed superior on SDEA instead. 5.From Pearson Correlation, we found little differences between the three evaluation models on the performances resulted from schools’ ability to develop students’ diversified skills. Regarding job performances before wage / salary adjustment, DEA and CDEA were highly correlated. Whereas CDEA and SDEA were not correlated and were different. Regarding job performances after wage / salary adjustment, there were major differences between DEA and CDEA. There was also only 0.527 major positive correlation between SDEA and DEA. Whereas minor negative correlation was shown between CDEA and SDEA. On comparison between job performances before and after wage / salary adjustments, the performance values of DEA and SDEA didn’t change much. However, the correlation coefficient on the part of CDEA was only 0.694, which showed there were significant differences before and after the wage / salary adjustments. There were obvious differences between all the performances values obtained from the three models. Spearman’s Correlations is basically agreeing with Pearson Correlation. Nevertheless, with Spearman’s Correlations slightly higher than Pearson Correlation, it was found that the efficiency values had changed after (wage / salary) adjustment. The ranking of these values, however, did not differ significantly before and after the adjustment. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T06:10:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-R94627023-1.pdf: 810832 bytes, checksum: 7a7a1a0313fc6e0282cb7a30e6cc58b0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機 3 第三節 研究目的 4 第四節 研究方法及步驟 4 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第三章 模型介紹 14 第一節 資料包絡法簡介 14 第二節 三階段資料包絡分析法 16 第三節 交叉效率分析 22 第四節 超級效率模式(SUPER EFFICIENCY) 24 第四章 樣本資料分析 26 第一節 資料來源 26 第五章 實證分析 30 第一節 多層次資料包絡分析架構 30 第二節 變數說明 32 第三節 薪資變數DEA三階段調整之實證分析 43 第四節 不同方法之績效實證分析 46 第六章 結論與建議 58 第一節 結論 58 第二節 建議 61 參考文獻 62 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 台灣技職院校商學院專科部之表現評估-資料包絡法 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Performance Evaluation of Junior Colleges of Business in Taiwan: A Data Envelopment Analysis | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 95-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 張靜貞 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃鏡如,田芳華 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 職場表現,績效,技職院校, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Job Market,Performance,Junior Colleges, | en |
dc.relation.page | 81 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-07-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 農業經濟學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 農業經濟學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 791.83 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。