Constructing the Evaluation of Program Logical Model to the Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration in Higher Education

10.6197/EHE.2009.0301.05

Chia-Hui Hou；Jen-Chia Chang

Theory-Based Evaluation ； Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration ； the Evaluation of Program Logical Model

Evaluation in Higher Education

3卷1期（2009 / 06 / 01）

103 - 136

英文

The ”theory-based evaluation” is highly recommended and virtually plays a pivotal role among all sorts of evaluation theory modes (Tseng Shu-hui, 2004) amidst the current evaluation differentials. This should be attributed to the primary reasons that the theory-based evaluation science is oriented to substantial knowledge & expertise as the confrontation methodology (Donaldson, 2007). By means of renewal, verification and simplification, it gradually takes shape cross-domain and practical theories to be applicable to diversified, comprehensive and multifaceted evaluation for further range of development and learning to provide macro-range alternative guidelines to be followed with. Where with the unique evaluation philosophy of evaluation, it is extensively applicable to Sociology and Management Science and such relevant research programs, including engineering, medicare, biotechnology, education, human resources and social services (Chen, 2003). At the moment, universities and colleges shoulder the sacred mission of developing and nurturing high-caliber professionals and experts, knowledge innovation and transmission (Tang Yao, Chen Chun-hao, 2003). How shall we make maximum utilization of knowledge to revitalize the society and economy? The answer to this question virtually becomes a key guidepost for all countries concerned to enhance competitive edge. In an attempt to infuse new momentum to develop a brand new future for universities, the academic and research institutions both in and out of the government invariably launch cooperation among academic fields and industries. Those key authorities notably Ministry of Education, National Science Council, Ministry of Economic Affairs have worked out and submitted a variety of academic & industrial cooperation programs, with added omentum to bring in resources to help enterprises transform themselves, especially over the past five years so as to develop solid R&D foundation and boost industry oriented human resources as the solid goals. The Executive Yuan (the Cabinet) has, as well, carried out academic & industrial joint venture programs since 2006. By 2010, the academic & industrial joint venture programs will be covered into the universities and colleges as the evaluation indices of the schools (Chen Hsi-shun, 2007). How shall universities and colleges enhance supervision over universities and colleges as the momentum to clarify respective characteristics and conditions of the various schools to underline diversified school operation into conducive competition? This should be the very key to break through future and deepen academic & industrial joint venture programs in the days and years ahead. The Evaluation of Higher Education has implemented since 2007 ”Academic & Industrial Joint Venture Programs Performance Rating for Universities.” In the rating efforts, the universities and colleges are classified into four major systems to set up the evaluation indices by means of the common evaluation dimension for overall assessment and evaluation of value-added performance of universities and colleges of entire countries to look into the value-added performance (Chen Ta-jen & Keng Yun, 2007). The samples taken for the performance rating, primarily through questionnaire, covered a total of 163 universities and colleges of entire Taiwan. The performance rating project took a total of nine months starting from January 2007. The performance rating results were officially promulgated on November 1, 2007. The results so promulgated sparkled widespread controversies as scholars and experts came forward to comment on the professionalism and seriousness of the evaluation one after another, leading the rated subjects into mixed sentiments. President Lee Sze-cheng of National Taiwan University, for instance, commented by saying that the evaluation in the academic & industrial joint venture programs depends upon the scale and calls for the prolonged teamwork between the schools and industries (Hsieh Hui-lien & Chiu Chiung-ping, 2007). Amidst the mixed-up controversies, it is imperative to expressly clarify with the thoughts of origin, substance, targets, philosophy and values in spreading and concentration. Practically, evaluation is embedded into the structure of modes. The evaluation mode theory affects the evaluation process, known as the ”theory-based evaluation mode”. Undoubtedly, it implicates complicated systems. Amidst the educational, social, cultural situations, they conduct continually and uninterruptedly empirical verification, hypotheses and interpretation to illustrate a variety of possible modes progressively. To put it in more understandable terms, amidst the interrelationship among hopping, breaking, chaos, organic circulation, there is an evaluation theory in both accommodation and spreading powers. In the present study, Ⅰ attempted to start with theory-based evaluation, connotation of concept, development process and principal advocacy to clarify the interrelationship among ”program,” ”theories,” ”evaluation,” ”logical model” and ”theory-based evaluation” to further elucidate the connotation theories through the current concert between universities & colleges and industries to go further into the thoughts of ”theory-oriented evaluation” to set up a ”theory-based program logic evaluation model”. The configuration falls within the range of the fundamental CIPP structure, including: 1. Context Evaluation of the target groups; 2. Input Evaluation; 3. Process Evaluation and 4. Product Evaluation. On the grounds of the theory-based evaluation mode concept, it expands the ”subsequence of target groups,” “input,” ”process” (Activities-Strategies) and ”product” (short-term product-long-term product). Further with input into varied evaluation views based on varied styles of academic & industrial joint venture programs, it looked into the effectiveness and future development of the academic & industrial joint venture programs. In the future, it will further skip old fashioned thoughts toward cooperation instead of competition to even up scarcity and superabundance to underline the strength in academic & industrial joint venture programs. Also on the grounds of theory-based evaluation, it repositions the impulse of academic & industrial joint venture programs to assure effective integration and utilization of resources concerned. Through the incessant innovation of new businesses and the vitality and competitive edge so incurred, the schools, industries and entire society will outperform the established targets and go beyond the current myth. It is firmly believed that through such profound efforts into the very deep grounds, the evaluation of academic & industrial joint venture programs will demonstrate the blueprints of the thoughts more definite and practicable.

1. Windhoek, Namibia: Directorate of Adult Basic Education, Ministry of Basic Education and Culture, Government of the Republic of Namibia
2. Chen, H. T.(2003).Theory-driven approach for facilitation of planning health promotion or other programs.The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,18(2),91-113.
3. Chen, H. T.(1990).A comprehensive perspective.Newbury Park,:CA:Sage Publications.
4. Donaldson, S. I.(2007).Program theory-driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
5. Donaldson, S. I.,S. I. Donaldson(Eds),M. Scriven(Eds)(2003).Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Fitz-Gibbon, C. T.,Morris, L. L.(1996).Theory-based evaluation.Evaluation Practice,17(2),177-184.
7. Hanberger, A.,Schild, I.(2004).Strategies to evaluate a university-industry knowledge-exchange programme.Evaluation,10(4),475-492.
8. Knaap, V. D. P.(2004).Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possibilities and challenges.Evaluation,10(1),16-34.
9. Madaus, G. F.,Kellaghan, T.,P. W. Jackson(Ed.)(1996).Handbook of research on curriculum.NY:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
10. Outcomes: What are They?
11. Logic models to enhance program performance
12. Renger, R,Titcomb, A.(2002).A three-step approach to teaching logic models.American Journal of Evaluation,23(4),493-503.
13. Rogers, E. M.(1962).Diffusion of innovations.New York:The Free Press.
14. Rogers, P. J(2007).Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on.Theory- based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation,114,63-81.
15. Rossi, P. H.,Lipsey, M. W.,Freeman, H. E.(2004).Evaluation: A systematic approach.Thousand Oaks ,CA:SAGE.
16. Scriven, M.(2004).Evaluation thesaurus.Newbury Park,CA:Sage.
17. Journal of Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration
18. Stufflebeam, D. L. ,D. L. Stufflebeam(Eds.),A. J. Shinkfield(Eds.),T. Kellaghan(Eds.)(2000).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation.Boston:Kluwer Academic.
19. Stufflebeam, D. L.,Madaus, G. F.,Kellaghan, T.(2000).Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed.).Boston:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Suchman, E. A.(1967).Evaluative research.New York:Rusell Sage Foundation.
21. Weiss, C. H.(1972).Evaluation.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
22. Weiss, C. H.(1997).Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future.New Directions for Evaluation,76,41-55.
23. Weiss, C. H.,J. Connell, A. Kubisch(Eds.),L. B. Schorr(Eds.),C. H. Weiss(Eds.)(1995).New approaches to evaluating community initiatives.New York:Aspen Institute.
24. Wholey, J. S.,L. Bickman(Ed.)(1987).Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory.Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation,33
25. Knowledge management
26. 公共政策論壇－高等教育系列研討會會議手冊
27. 吳天方、吳天元、費業勳(2008)。以CIPP建構產學合作方案評鑑模式。教育資料與研究雙月刊，84，1-20。
28. 吳清山(2001)。教育發展研究。臺北市:元照。
29. 吳清山、林天佑(2004)。產學合作。教育資料與研究雙月刊，59，115。
30. 加值大學產學合作連結創新－強化大學社會責任
31. 公共政策論壇－高等教育系列研討會會議手冊
32. 侯佳惠(2007)。「產學合作」政策下，社會真的幸福了嗎？。經濟前瞻，115，115-121。
33. 教育部(2006)。大專校院產學合作實施辦法。臺北市:教育部。
34. 技職司三科業務介紹：產學合作
35. 教育部(2007)。產學合作手冊。臺北市:教育部。
36. 逢甲大學產學合作架構圖
37. 公共政策論壇－高等教育系列研討會會議手冊
38. 公共政策論壇－高等教育系列研討會會議手冊
39. 95大專院校產學合作績效評量
40. 曾淑惠(2008)。教育評鑑：理論與實務的對話。臺北市:師大書苑。
41. 曾淑惠(2004)。教育評鑑模式。臺北市:心理。
42. 曾淑惠、陳依婷(2005)。中國工業職業教育學會年刊。臺北:中國工業職業教育學會。
43. 湯堯、成群豪(2004)。高等教育經營。臺北市:高等教育出版社。
44. 公共政策論壇－高等教育系列研討會會議手冊
45. 潘慧玲、潘慧玲主編(2005)。教育評鑑的回顧與展望。臺北市:心理。
46. 蕭鍚錡、黃天助、楊豪森(2007)。技專校院產學合作理論基礎及其意涵之探討。2007技職教育策略聯盟暨產學攜手國際學術研討會，臺北市:
47. 產學合作：成大贏臺大
48. 簡惠閔(2006)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立教育大學國民教育研究所博士論文。