成人教育組織經營績效之調查研究：CVIPP模型與指標的應用

THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF CVIPP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MODEL AMONG ADULT EDUCATIONAL ORGANISATIONS IN TAIWAN

10.6151/CERQ.2016.2402.02

胡夢鯨(Meng-Ching Hu)；嚴嘉明(Chia-Ming Yen)；施宇澤(Yu-Ze Shih)

成人教育組織 ； 經營績效 ； CVIPP模型 ； 指標應用 ； adult educational organisations ； performance ； CVIPP Model ； application of indicators

當代教育研究季刊

24卷2期（2016 / 06 / 30）

39 - 74

繁體中文

研究目的　本研究目的分述如下：一、應用成人教育組織績效評估指標模型，評估台灣地區成人教育組織的經營績效表現與問題；二、分析不同類型成人教育組織其指標合適程度的差異；三、分析影響台灣地區成人教育組織經營績效的因素；四、根據研究成果，提出對未來成人組織或機構經營的建議。研究設計／方法／取徑本研究主要是應用「成人教育組織績效評估CVIPP指標」的問卷，實地調查三類成人教育組織的單位主管及行政人員，針對機構績效進行評估，總計發出問卷2,992份，回收2,222份，回收率為74.26%，有效問卷為2,050份。研究發現或結論　本研究發現三類型組織在各構面指標的表現，除了「外部情境」層面較為類似外，其餘則顯著不同；而在各構面指標的影響力方面，八個構面均有其影響力，但以「組織課程運作管理」與「資源挹注管理」此兩構面的影響效果最大。然而，若欲滿足各構面的影響力，三類型組織在優先重視的指標上必須有不同的思維。研究原創性／價值性　放眼國內外成人教育及終身學習的發展，績效評估已是不可避免的趨勢。本研究針對不同類型成人教育組織，發展出一套整體性的成人教育組織績效評估工具，國內外相關文獻甚為少見，此為本研究的創新性。而這一套指標亦可用來實際評估成人及終身教育組織經營的績效及影響因素，此為本研究的價值性，顯示本研究不但有其研究上的創新性，也符合當前國內實際現況的需求。

Purposes This study aims to look at the following aspects: First, the Model and Indicators of evaluation on the effectiveness of adult educational organizations are adopted and applied here to assess the performances and issues among adult educational organizations in Taiwan. Second, the differences among the three types of adult educational organizations are assessed and analysed in terms of suitability of indicators. Third, the reasons that play significant effects on the organizational management performance are also analysed. Last, further recommendations are made which were driven from the results of indicator and assessment in this study. Design/methodology/approach This study mainly adopts from a survey which is designed as the tool of ＂CVIPP Performance Evaluation Model for Adult Educational Organisations＂, both the chief and administrative staff from three different types of adult educational organizations were recruited to participate. In total, 2,992 copies of questionnaires were distributed out and 2,222 copies were returned. The response rate is 74.26％ and 2,050 copies of questionnaire are valid. Findings According to the results, the performance indicators from Context are similar from one another among the three types of organizations. However, there are differences in Vision, Input and Product and Process aspects. Statistical power was found among the eight items and the items of ＂Programme planning and management＂ and ＂Resource investment and management＂ were in particular. To meet the satisfaction of all items in terms of statistical power, three types of organisations showed each of them had various needs and priority settings. Originality/value Performance evaluation has become the trends among the studies of adult education and lifelong learning in the worldwide. Therefore, the innovation of this study is to develop a complex evaluation tool to assess the performance from different types of adult educational organizations. And this has been rarely researched from previous studies both in Taiwan and worldwide. The values of this study are those indicators, which were developed here, systematically assessed the organisational performance and influential factors affected on the various organizations. This study not only innovated intellectually but also met our current needs from the society.

1. 彭錦鵬、江瑞祥、許耿銘(2011)。非營利組織績效評量指標之建構。政治科學論叢，49，125-160。
   連結：
2. 劉明超(2012)。新北市樂齡學習中心實施現況與評鑑指標權重之初探。學校行政雙月刊，77，1-26。
   連結：
3. 蔡培村、武文瑛(2007)。我國回流教育政策發展回顧與檢討。教育實踐與研究，20(1)，91-118。
   連結：
4. 鄭敏惠(2009)。臺北市社區大學績效指標建立之探討：由下而上途徑的觀點。公共行政學報，32，105-142。
   連結：
5. 鄭錫鍇、廖洲棚(2009)。公共職訓委外績效評估指標之研究：以行政院勞委會職訓局爲例。公共行政學報，30，33-62。
   連結：
6. 蕭佳純(2011)。成人教育機構創新經營指標建構之研究。教育經營與管理研究集刊，7，27-54。
   連結：
7. 教育部（2008）。教育部2008 年「臺閩地區成人教育調查報告」。臺北市：作者。[Ministry of Education (2008). MoE 2008 report of adult education report in Taiwan and Fu Jien areas. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.]
8. Anderson, J. C.,Gerbing, D. W.(1988).Structural equation modeling in peactice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin,103,411-423.
9. Bollen, K. A.(1989).Structural equation modeling with latent variables.New York, NY:John Wiley.
10. Boomsma, A.(1983).On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size and normality.Amsterdam, Netherlands:Sociometric Research Foundation.
11. Caplow, T.(1964).The sociology of work.New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
12. Cohen, J.,Cohen, P.(1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
13. Dossett, D. L.,Suszko, M.(1990).Re-examining the causal direction of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.the annual meeting of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Miami, Florida, USA.:
14. Drasgow, F.,Kanfer, R.(1985).Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations.Journal of Applied Psychology,70,662-680.
15. Fitzpatrick, J. L.,Sanders, J. R.,Worthen, B. R.(2004).Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines.Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
16. Herman, R. D.,Renz, D. O.(1999).Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,28(2),107-126.
17. James, L. R.,Mulaik, S. A.,Brett, J. M.(1982).Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data.Beverly Hill, CA:Sage.
18. Knowles, M. S.(1980).The modern practice of adult education: From andragogy to pedagogy.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Cambridge.
19. McClure, R. H.,Wells, C. E.(1985).On the approximation of utility functions for faculty teaching assignments.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences: International Journal of Public Sector Decision-Making,19(3),153-158.
20. Muthen, B.,Kaplan, D.(1992).A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,45,19-30.
21. Skilbeck, M.(1984).School-based curriculum development.London, England:Harper & Row.
22. Sobel, M. E.(1982).Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.Sociological Methodology,13,290-312.
23. Stufflebeam, D. L.,Madaus, G. F.,Kellaghan, T.(2000).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation.Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
24. Wilensky, H. L.(1964).The professionalization of everyone?.American Journal of Sociology,70(2),137-158.
25. 中華民國成人教育學會編(1995)。成人教育專業化。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:正中書局=Cheng Chung Book。
26. 司徒達賢(1999)。非營利組織的經營管理。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:天下文化=Commonwealth。
27. 呂育一、徐木蘭(1994)。非營利組織績效指標之研究─以文教基金會為例。臺大管理論叢，5(1)，165-188。
28. 邱皓政(2011)。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wunan。
29. 胡夢鯨、嚴嘉明、詹浚煌(2015)。臺灣地區成人教育組織績效評估CVIPP 模型與指標之建構。成人及終身教育學刊，24，1-34。
30. 孫本初(2005)。公共管理。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:智勝=Best Wise。
31. 張錫惠(1997)。績效管理：非營利組織經營管理研修粹要。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:洪健全基金會=Hong's Foundation。
32. 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2009)。多變量分析方法－統計軟體應用。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wunan。
33. 陳貞伶(2006)。桃園市=Taoyuan，國立中央大學=National Central University。
34. 陳澤義、陳啟斌(2006)。企業診斷與績效評估：平衡計分卡之運用。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:華泰=Hwa-Tai。
35. 蔡培村(1995)。發展成人教育、建立終生教育體制。教改通訊，10，14-16。

1. (2017)。應用CVIPP模型建構我國樂齡學習中心學習運作關鍵指標之研究。教育政策論壇，20(4)，107-144。
2. (2018)。參與學習過程經驗及組織脈絡因素對樂齡學習中心學習者績效表現知覺之影響：階層線性模式分析。成人及終身教育學刊，30，51-98。