English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90029/119959 (75%)
Visitors : 24038462      Online Users : 51
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32891


    Title: 學校競爭與幼兒園品質、組織創新之相關研究
    A Study of The Relations Between School Competition, ECE Program Quality, and Organizational Innovation
    Authors: 陳依甯
    Chen, Yi Ning
    Contributors: 徐聯恩
    陳依甯
    Chen, Yi Ning
    Keywords: 市場化
    學校競爭
    幼兒園
    幼兒園品質
    組織創新
    market-oriented
    school competition
    kindergarten
    ECE program quality
    organizational innovation
    Date: 2007
    Issue Date: 2009-09-17 14:47:33 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 教育改革近年來在世界各國蔚為風潮,而藉由市場的力量促進學校間彼此競爭是其中一項重要的理念,但促使教育市場化的結果,衍生出許多的爭議和問題。本研究以學校競爭、幼兒園品質、組織創新為主要變項,希望透過本研究來釐清三個變項間之關係,並瞭解學校競爭影響幼兒園品質、組織創新之情形。
    本研究以台北市文山區和萬華區兩區立案之公私立幼兒園為實徵研究之對象,有效樣本共81份。並以描述統計、獨立樣本t考驗、單因子變異數分析及相關分析等方法來分析並驗證本研究所提出之各項假設。
    本研究之主要發現如下:
    一、本研究釐清學校競爭之概念內涵,並與幼兒園品質、組織創新作相關連結。
    二、文山區和萬華區之幼兒園競爭程度分佈不均。
    三、文山區之幼兒園競爭程度較萬華區高。
    四、文山區和萬華區之幼兒園園長認為自身園所幼兒園品質之現況佳。
    五、文山區和萬華區之幼兒園園長認為自身園所知識活動品質之現況尚待加強。
    六、文山區和萬華區之幼兒園園長認為自身園所採用組織創新之現況佳。
    七、學校競爭與服務品質呈中度正相關。
    八、教學創新與行政創新呈中度正相關。
    九、公立幼稚園採用行政創新比私立托兒所多。
    最後研究者根據研究結論,就實務面和後續研究方向提出具體的建議,以期對未來幼教的發展有所助益。
    Educational reform has been a trend in western countries. School competition is one of the concept in market-oriented reforms. Yet, evidence on the actual benefits of market-oriented reforms is at best mixed.
    The purpose of the article is to integrative school competition and the relationship between ECE program quality and organizational innovation in kindergarten. A questionnaires survey are adopted for the study and were distributed to 153 kindergartens in Wenshan district and Wanhua district of Taipei City. The number of valid return rate was 54.2%. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Person correlation, t-test, and ANOVA.
    The results were as follow:
    1. This study investigated the concept of school competition, and linked up school competition with ECE program quality and organizational innovation.
    2. This study revealed that the degree of competition between kindergartens was not equal.
    3. This study showed that the competition in Wenshan district was higher than in Wanhua district.
    4. This study indicated that ECE program quality was good in Wenshan district and Wanhua district.
    5. This study showed that knowledge activity quality of kindergarten needed to strengthen in Wenshan and Wanhua district.
    6. This study indicated that organizational innovation of kindergarten was good in Wenshan district and Wanhua district.
    7. This study demonstrated a positive relationship between school competition and service quality.
    8. This study showed a positive relationship between instruction innovation and administration innovation.

    9.This study revealed that administration innovations in public school were adopted more than in private school.
    Overall, findings from this study pointed to several relevant implications for the early childhood education practice and follow-up research.
    Reference: 中文部份
    何瑞薇(譯)(2001)。Sallis, E.著。全面品質教育。台北:元照。
    廖鳳瑞(譯)(2002)。Katz, L. G.著。與幼教大師對談---邁向專業成長之路。台北:信誼。
    王保進(2002)。台北市幼兒教育券政策成效評估之研究。初等教育學刊,13,頁25-52。
    白育綺(2004)。幼兒園品質指標建構之研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    巫永森(2002)。幼兒教育券政策實施情形之調查硏究 : 以彰化縣為例。私立靜宜大學靑少年兒童福利硏究所碩士論文,未出版,台中縣。
    巫永森與邱志鵬(2001)。台灣地區幼兒教育券政策之歷史研究。兒童福利期刊,1,頁1- 40。
    巫永森與邱志鵬(2002)。台灣地區幼兒教育券政策實施情形之調查研究-以彰化縣為例。兒童福利期刊,3,頁131-151。
    吳清山與黃久芬(1995)。美國教育選擇權之研究。初等教育學刊,4,頁1-26。
    吳清山與賴協志(2007)。桃園縣國民中小學教育品質之研究---判斷指標、影響因素及提升途徑。當代教育研究,15(1),頁1-38。
    吳金盛(2001)。台北市幼兒教育券政策實施情況之研究。國立台北師範學院國
    民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    沈姍姍(2003)。家長教育選擇權的發展與爭議。北縣教育,45,頁40-44。
    李家宗(1997)。英美教育改革法案中市場導向之比較研究。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,南投縣。
    李敦義(2000)。市場化理論分析及對台灣中小學教育改革的啟示。教育研究資訊,8(6),頁62-88。
    呂金玲(2001)。從國民教育權和競爭績效分析教育券政策。國立臺灣師範大學三民主義硏究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    林明吟(2005)。台北縣家長對我國幼兒教育券政策實施之調查硏究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    林麗珍(2004)。台南縣市幼兒教育券相關問題之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台南市。
    林文達(1984)。教育經濟學。台北市:三民。
    徐聯恩與劉蓁(2005)。幼兒園品質衡量:從內部導向到外部導向。載於潘慧玲(主編),教育評鑑的回顧與展望(頁159 – 218)。台北市:心理。
    徐聯恩與丘嘉慧(2003)。【教育券政策與教育品質之探討-學校競爭觀點】。未發表之文章。
    徐聯恩與李敦義(2003)。【學校競爭的探討】。未發表之文章。
    徐聯恩(2005)。市場競爭、組織創新與教育品質。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫,未出版。
    秦夢群(2002)。市場機制或社會正義:教育券政策走向之分析研究。教育政策論壇,5:2,頁25-42。
    陳明德(2000)。國民小學實施家長教育選擇權可行性之研究-以台北縣為例。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    陳善德(民89)。建立教育品質系統的幾個關鍵思考。北縣教育,35,頁18-22。
    陳淑美(2004)。嘉義市幼兒教育券實施成效及對家長選擇幼稚園影響之研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所,未出版,嘉義縣。
    陳靜怡(2004)。幼稚園組織創新與跨組織關係之研究。國立政治大學幼教所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    陳怡如(2003)。我國幼兒教育券政策執行成效評估 : 家長與業者觀點。國立中正大學政治硏究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
    湯堯(1997)。教育市場導向探討與省思-市場模型建立與研究。教育研究資訊,5(3),頁74-85。
    趙康伶(2002)。國實施幼兒教育券之硏究 : 以高屏兩縣為例。國立屏東師範學院國民教育硏究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
    蔡玉娩(2003)。福利經濟之硏究 : 以宜蘭縣幼兒教育券政策為例。佛光人文社會學院經濟學硏究所碩士論文,未出版,宜蘭縣。
    蓋浙生(民71)。教育經濟學。台北市:三民。
    蓋浙生(民82)。教育經濟與計畫。台北市:五南。
    劉姵君(2005)。市場導向、組織學習、組織創新與幼稚園學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    劉朝芳(2000)。幼兒教育券實施之硏究。國立彰化師範大學教育硏究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化市。
    劉蓁(2007)。幼兒園品質信念與幼兒園品質關係之研究。國立政治大學幼教所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
    鄭孟忠(2001)。我國幼兒教育券實施成效及其對家長教育選擇權影響之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
    盧美貴與謝美慧(2001)。台北市幼兒教育券政策實施成效分析。台北市立師範學院學報,32,頁429-450。
    謝美慧(2002)。教育政策評估理論之硏究 : 以北、高兩市幼兒教育券政策為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育硏究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。
    英文部份
    Arcaro, J. S., (1995). Quality in education: an implementation handbook. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press
    Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G.(1994). A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 472-509.
    Arum, R., (1996). Do private schools force public school to compete? American Sociological Review, 61, 29-46.
    Barrow, L. & Rouse, C., (2000). Using market valuation to assess the importance and efficiency of public school spending. Working Paper 438, Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
    Belfield, C. R. & Levin, H. M.(2002). The effects of competition between schools on educational outcomes: a review for the United States. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 279-341.
    Blair & Staley(1995). Quality competition and public schools: Further evidence. Economics of Education Review, 14, 193-198.
    Borland, M. V. & Howson, R. M., (1992). Students’ academic achievement and the degree of market concentration in education. Economics of Education Review,11, 31-39.
    Borland, M. V. & Howson, R. M., (1996). Competition, expenditures and student 20 performance in mathematics: a comment on Crouch et al. Public Choice, 87, 395-400.
    Brokaw, A. J., Gale, J. R. & Merz, T. E., (1995). Competition and the level of expenditures: K-through-12 public schools in Michigan. Journal of Economics, 21, 99-103.
    Christopher, A. S. & Nicholas, P. L. Jr., (1996). Private school enrollment and public school performance: assessing the effects of competition upon public school student achievement in Washington state. Policy Studies Journal, 24, 666-675.
    Couch, J. F., Shughart, W. F. & Williams, A., (1993). Private school enrollment and public school performance. Public Choice, 76, 301-312.
    Crosby, P. B.(1979). Quality is free. New York: Mentor Executive Library.
    Dee, T. S., (1998). Competition and the quality of public schools. Economics of Education Review, 17, 419-427.
    Duncombe, W., Miner, J. & Ruggiero, J., (1997). Empirical evaluation of bureaucratic models of inefficiency. Public Finance Quarterly, 24, 291-318.
    Geller, C. R., Sjoquist, D. L. & Walker, M. B., (2001). The effect of private school competition on public school performance. NCSPE Working Paper. Retrieved September 1, 2002, from www.ncspe.org
    Goldhaber, D., (1999). An endogenous model of public school expenditures and private school enrollment. Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 106-128.
    Grosskopf, S., Hayes, K., Taylor, L. L. & Weber, W. L., (1999). Allocative inefficiency and school competition. In Proceedings of the 91st Annual Conference on Taxation. Washington, DC: National Tax Association.
    Gibbons, S.,Stephen, M.& Olmo, S.(2006,July). Choice, Competition and Pupil Achievement. The Economic Journal, 116, 77-92.
    Halfon, N., Shulman, E., & Hochstein, M. (2001). Brain development in early childhood education. In Halfon, N., Shulman, E., & Hochstein, M. (Eds.), Building community systems for young children (pp.1-24), UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. Retrieved Nov. 21, 2006, from http://www.healthychild.ucla.edu/Publications/Documents/halfon.health.dev.pdf
    Hanson, M.(2001), Institute theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637-661.
    Hanushek, E. K. & Rivkin, S. G., (2001). Does public school competition affect teacher quality? Available from http://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/down.htm
    Henry, G. T. & Craig S. G.(2003,March). Can Competition Improve Educational Outcomes? Paper presented at the meeting of American Education Finance Association, Orlando, FL.
    Hirsch, D., (2002). What Works in Innovation in Education School: A Choice of Direction.
    Hoxby, C. M., (1994). Do private schools provide competition for public schools? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 4978. Available from http://nber.org
    Hoxby, C. M., (2000). Would school choice change the teaching profession ? 21 Available from http://post.economic.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers.html
    Hoxby, C. M. (2003). School choice and school competition: Evidence from the United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 11-67.
    Jepsen, C., (1999). The effects of private school competition on student achievement. Available from www.norghweatern,edu/ipr/publications/workingpapers/
    Juran, J. M.(1986). A universal approach to managing for quality. Quality Process, 12,19-24.
    Kang, B. G. & Geene, K. V., (2002). The effects of monitoring and competition on public education outputs: A stochastic frontier approach. Public Finance Review, 30, 3-26.
    Kenny, L. W. & Schmidt, A. B., (1994). The decline in the number of school districts in the US: 1950-1980. Public Choice, 79, 1-18.
    Leaonard, J. F., (1991). Applying Deming’s principles to our school. South Carolina Business Journal, 11, 23-34.
    Lovell, M. C., (1978). Spending for education: The exercise of public choice. Review of Economics and Statistics, 40, 487-495.
    Maranto, R., Milliman, S. & Stevens, S., (2000). Does private school competition harm public schools? Revisiting Smith and Meier’s “ The case against school choice.” Political Research Quarterly, 53, 177-192.
    Marlow, M. L., (1997). Public education supply and student performance. Applied Economics, 29, 617-626.
    Marlow, M. L., (2000). Spending, school structure, and public education quality: Evidence from California. Economics of Education Review, 19, 89-106.
    McMillan, R., (1999). Competition, parental involvement and public school
    performance. Dissertation, Stanford University.
    Navaratnam, K. K. & O’Connor, R., (1993). Quality assurance in vocational
    education: meeting the needs of the nineties. Vocational Aspect of Education, 45, 113-123.
    Navaratnam, K. K. & Wallace, Z., (1994). Quality assurance in TAFE teaching. Quality Magazine, 3, 80-86.
    Newmark, C. M., (1995). Another look at whether private schools influence public school quality: comment. Public Choice, 82, 365-373.
    Olian, J. D. & Rynes, S. L., (1991). Making total quality work: aligning
    organizational processes, performance measures, and stakeholders. Human Resources Management, 30, 303-333.
    Oplatka, I.(2004 ).The characteristics of the school organization and the constraints on market ideology in education:an institutional view, Journal of Education Policy, 19(2), 143-161.
    Rangazas, P., (1997). Competition and private school vouchers. Education Economics, 5, 245-264.
    Rees, N. S., (1999). Public school benefits of private school vouchers. Policy Review, 93, 16-24.
    Sallis, E. (1994). From system to leadership: The development of the quality movement in future education. In G. D. Doherty(Ed.), Developing quality system in education (pp. 226-241). London: Routledge.
    Sander, W., (1999). Private schools and public school achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 34, 697-709.
    Simon, C. A. & Lovrich, N. P., Jr., (1996). Private school performance and public school performance: assessing the effects of competition upon public school student achievement in Washington State. Policy Studies Journal, 24, 666-675.
    Smith, K. B. & Meier, K. J.,(1995). Public choice in education: markets and the demand for quality education. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 461-478.
    Vedder, R. & Hall, J., (2000). Private school competition and public teacher salaries. Journal of Labor Research, 21, 161-168.
    Wrinkle, R. D., Stewart, J, & Polinard, J. L., (1999). Public school quality, private schools, and race. American Journal of Political Science, 43. 1248-1253.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    幼兒教育所
    94157004
    96
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094157004
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[幼兒教育研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    700401.pdf15KbAdobe PDF1064View/Open
    700402.pdf17KbAdobe PDF1425View/Open
    700403.pdf17KbAdobe PDF1225View/Open
    700404.pdf16KbAdobe PDF1016View/Open
    700405.pdf72KbAdobe PDF995View/Open
    700406.pdf32KbAdobe PDF1073View/Open
    700407.pdf178KbAdobe PDF1271View/Open
    700408.pdf462KbAdobe PDF2308View/Open
    700409.pdf258KbAdobe PDF1230View/Open
    700410.pdf226KbAdobe PDF1206View/Open
    700411.pdf60KbAdobe PDF1214View/Open
    700412.pdf133KbAdobe PDF1516View/Open
    700413.pdf108KbAdobe PDF1212View/Open
    700414.pdf101KbAdobe PDF1069View/Open
    700415.pdf88KbAdobe PDF1057View/Open
    700416.pdf96KbAdobe PDF1008View/Open
    700417.pdf182KbAdobe PDF1447View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback