The purpose of this study is to develop the evaluation standards of NURI program which has been carried out since 2004 and to examine its validity. The major findings of this study were as follows: First, in terms of the evaluation standards, 37 evalu...
다국어 입력
あ
ぁ
か
が
さ
ざ
た
だ
な
は
ば
ぱ
ま
や
ゃ
ら
わ
ゎ
ん
い
ぃ
き
ぎ
し
じ
ち
ぢ
に
ひ
び
ぴ
み
り
う
ぅ
く
ぐ
す
ず
つ
づ
っ
ぬ
ふ
ぶ
ぷ
む
ゆ
ゅ
る
え
ぇ
け
げ
せ
ぜ
て
で
ね
へ
べ
ぺ
め
れ
お
ぉ
こ
ご
そ
ぞ
と
ど
の
ほ
ぼ
ぽ
も
よ
ょ
ろ
を
ア
ァ
カ
サ
ザ
タ
ダ
ナ
ハ
バ
パ
マ
ヤ
ャ
ラ
ワ
ヮ
ン
イ
ィ
キ
ギ
シ
ジ
チ
ヂ
ニ
ヒ
ビ
ピ
ミ
リ
ウ
ゥ
ク
グ
ス
ズ
ツ
ヅ
ッ
ヌ
フ
ブ
プ
ム
ユ
ュ
ル
エ
ェ
ケ
ゲ
セ
ゼ
テ
デ
ヘ
ベ
ペ
メ
レ
オ
ォ
コ
ゴ
ソ
ゾ
ト
ド
ノ
ホ
ボ
ポ
モ
ヨ
ョ
ロ
ヲ
―
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
예시)
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
А
Б
В
Г
Д
Е
Ё
Ж
З
И
Й
К
Л
М
Н
О
П
Р
С
Т
У
Ф
Х
Ц
Ч
Ш
Щ
Ъ
Ы
Ь
Э
Ю
Я
а
б
в
г
д
е
ё
ж
з
и
й
к
л
м
н
о
п
р
с
т
у
ф
х
ц
ч
ш
щ
ъ
ы
ь
э
ю
я
′
″
℃
Å
￠
￡
￥
¤
℉
‰
＄
％
Ｆ
￦
㎕
㎖
㎗
ℓ
㎘
㏄
㎣
㎤
㎥
㎦
㎙
㎚
㎛
㎜
㎝
㎞
㎟
㎠
㎡
㎢
㏊
㎍
㎎
㎏
㏏
㎈
㎉
㏈
㎧
㎨
㎰
㎱
㎲
㎳
㎴
㎵
㎶
㎷
㎸
㎹
㎀
㎁
㎂
㎃
㎄
㎺
㎻
㎽
㎾
㎿
㎐
㎑
㎒
㎓
㎔
Ω
㏀
㏁
㎊
㎋
㎌
㏖
㏅
㎭
㎮
㎯
㏛
㎩
㎪
㎫
㎬
㏝
㏐
㏓
㏃
㏉
㏜
㏆
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T11595304
- 저자
-
발행사항
서울 : 建國大學校, 2009
- 학위논문사항
-
발행연도
2009
-
작성언어
한국어
-
KDC
371 판사항(4)
-
DDC
379 판사항(21)
-
발행국(도시)
서울
-
형태사항
iii, 114장 ; 26 cm
-
일반주기명
참고문헌: 장 83-89
-
소장기관
- 건국대학교 상허기념도서관
- 국립중앙도서관
- 건국대학교 상허기념도서관
-
0
상세조회 -
0
다운로드
인용문이 복사되었습니다.
부가정보
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
The purpose of this study is to develop the evaluation standards of NURI program which has been carried out since 2004 and to examine its validity.
The major findings of this study were as follows:
First, in terms of the evaluation standards, 37 evaluation indices were established through two surveys for the experts by the use of the delphi panel, and they were considered to be valid.
Second, managers and staffs who are participating in NURI program directly or indirectly also considered 37 evaluation indices to be valid whose validity were verified by experts. 8 evaluation items has been organized through these factor analysis. They were restructured as three evaluation domains such as 'team operation plan & strategy,' 'internal or external condition of team,' and 'team product.'
Third, the findings by job status, working experience, and demographic variables were as follows:
1) There was no statistically difference between direct participation group and indirect participation group. Hence, all of them considered evaluation indices of NURI program to be valid.
2) In terms of evaluation standards of NURI program, there was no statistically difference between managers and staffs. That means that both of them regarded those indices as valid.
3) In terms of the evaluation item of 'operating the program for job findings,' the professors who has been working for 11 to 20 and administration staffs considered evaluation standards of NURI program to be more valid. For other evaluation items, evaluation standards of NURI program were considered to be valid.
4) According to evaluation items such as 'college specialization strategy,' 'curriculum operation for job finding,' 'the utility of curriculum operation,' 'the relation to the community,' and 'the adequacy of team finance,' there was some regional difference in the validity of evaluation standards of NURI program.
Based on the above findings of this study, the conclusions of this study were as follows:
First, through the experts' advice and the development of evaluation standards and the examination of the validity for the program participants, it was right that evaluation standards of NURI program should be structured into three evaluation domains, eight evaluation items, 37 evaluation indices. 37 evaluation indices included indices about the university, which were usually suggested as the problems in the team evaluation. In spite of this complaint, those indices needed for the evaluation standards of NURI program.
Second, according to the evaluation standards of NURI program which were developed by the delphi panel based on experts' judgement and examination, program managers and staffs, Industry-University cooperation team managers and its staffs, who participated in NURI program directly or indirectly, considered 37 evaluation indices to be valid. This means that the managers who are usually evaluated have the same opinion about the standards where the content validity was examined based on professional opinion. The study also inferred the adjustment of evaluation indices according to the index selection and evaluation period. Some evaluation indices had problems such as external conditions which task team hardly controls and the cooperation with other teams beyond the program team. Those indices should be considered in the real evaluation. Moreover, the evaluation indices needed to be adjusted according to the evaluation period. It is desirable that finance support program for universities, which has been processed under the long-term schedule, needed to differentiate evaluation indices of each year.
Third, according to the evaluation standards this study suggested, the background factors such as participation types, job status, and working experience didn't make any meaningful difference of validity, but there was some validity difference in the regional factor. This gives significant suggestions about finance support program for provincial universities. When establishing evaluation standards of task to support university finance, it is important to consider the environment difference among metropolitan areas and provincial areas.
Based on the findings in this study, the following suggestions were drawn:
First, the following study is needed to examine evaluation standards where more widely related people participate.
Second, in addition to finance support program for universities, when government performs evaluation task, the study should try to examine validity of evaluation standards.
The major findings of this study were as follows:
First, in terms of the evaluation standards, 37 evaluation indices were established through two surveys for the experts by the use of the delphi panel, and they were considered to be valid.
Second, managers and staffs who are participating in NURI program directly or indirectly also considered 37 evaluation indices to be valid whose validity were verified by experts. 8 evaluation items has been organized through these factor analysis. They were restructured as three evaluation domains such as 'team operation plan & strategy,' 'internal or external condition of team,' and 'team product.'
Third, the findings by job status, working experience, and demographic variables were as follows:
1) There was no statistically difference between direct participation group and indirect participation group. Hence, all of them considered evaluation indices of NURI program to be valid.
2) In terms of evaluation standards of NURI program, there was no statistically difference between managers and staffs. That means that both of them regarded those indices as valid.
3) In terms of the evaluation item of 'operating the program for job findings,' the professors who has been working for 11 to 20 and administration staffs considered evaluation standards of NURI program to be more valid. For other evaluation items, evaluation standards of NURI program were considered to be valid.
4) According to evaluation items such as 'college specialization strategy,' 'curriculum operation for job finding,' 'the utility of curriculum operation,' 'the relation to the community,' and 'the adequacy of team finance,' there was some regional difference in the validity of evaluation standards of NURI program.
Based on the above findings of this study, the conclusions of this study were as follows:
First, through the experts' advice and the development of evaluation standards and the examination of the validity for the program participants, it was right that evaluation standards of NURI program should be structured into three evaluation domains, eight evaluation items, 37 evaluation indices. 37 evaluation indices included indices about the university, which were usually suggested as the problems in the team evaluation. In spite of this complaint, those indices needed for the evaluation standards of NURI program.
Second, according to the evaluation standards of NURI program which were developed by the delphi panel based on experts' judgement and examination, program managers and staffs, Industry-University cooperation team managers and its staffs, who participated in NURI program directly or indirectly, considered 37 evaluation indices to be valid. This means that the managers who are usually evaluated have the same opinion about the standards where the content validity was examined based on professional opinion. The study also inferred the adjustment of evaluation indices according to the index selection and evaluation period. Some evaluation indices had problems such as external conditions which task team hardly controls and the cooperation with other teams beyond the program team. Those indices should be considered in the real evaluation. Moreover, the evaluation indices needed to be adjusted according to the evaluation period. It is desirable that finance support program for universities, which has been processed under the long-term schedule, needed to differentiate evaluation indices of each year.
Third, according to the evaluation standards this study suggested, the background factors such as participation types, job status, and working experience didn't make any meaningful difference of validity, but there was some validity difference in the regional factor. This gives significant suggestions about finance support program for provincial universities. When establishing evaluation standards of task to support university finance, it is important to consider the environment difference among metropolitan areas and provincial areas.
Based on the findings in this study, the following suggestions were drawn:
First, the following study is needed to examine evaluation standards where more widely related people participate.
Second, in addition to finance support program for universities, when government performs evaluation task, the study should try to examine validity of evaluation standards.
The purpose of this study is to develop the evaluation standards of NURI program which has been carried out since 2004 and to examine its validity.
The major findings of this study were as follows:
First, in terms of the evaluation standards, 37 evaluation indices were established through two surveys for the experts by the use of the delphi panel, and they were considered to be valid.
Second, managers and staffs who are participating in NURI program directly or indirectly also considered 37 evaluation indices to be valid whose validity were verified by experts. 8 evaluation items has been organized through these factor analysis. They were restructured as three evaluation domains such as 'team operation plan & strategy,' 'internal or external condition of team,' and 'team product.'
Third, the findings by job status, working experience, and demographic variables were as follows:
1) There was no statistically difference between direct participation group and indirect participation group. Hence, all of them considered evaluation indices of NURI program to be valid.
2) In terms of evaluation standards of NURI program, there was no statistically difference between managers and staffs. That means that both of them regarded those indices as valid.
3) In terms of the evaluation item of 'operating the program for job findings,' the professors who has been working for 11 to 20 and administration staffs considered evaluation standards of NURI program to be more valid. For other evaluation items, evaluation standards of NURI program were considered to be valid.
4) According to evaluation items such as 'college specialization strategy,' 'curriculum operation for job finding,' 'the utility of curriculum operation,' 'the relation to the community,' and 'the adequacy of team finance,' there was some regional difference in the validity of evaluation standards of NURI program.
Based on the above findings of this study, the conclusions of this study were as follows:
First, through the experts' advice and the development of evaluation standards and the examination of the validity for the program participants, it was right that evaluation standards of NURI program should be structured into three evaluation domains, eight evaluation items, 37 evaluation indices. 37 evaluation indices included indices about the university, which were usually suggested as the problems in the team evaluation. In spite of this complaint, those indices needed for the evaluation standards of NURI program.
Second, according to the evaluation standards of NURI program which were developed by the delphi panel based on experts' judgement and examination, program managers and staffs, Industry-University cooperation team managers and its staffs, who participated in NURI program directly or indirectly, considered 37 evaluation indices to be valid. This means that the managers who are usually evaluated have the same opinion about the standards where the content validity was examined based on professional opinion. The study also inferred the adjustment of evaluation indices according to the index selection and evaluation period. Some evaluation indices had problems such as external conditions which task team hardly controls and the cooperation with other teams beyond the program team. Those indices should be considered in the real evaluation. Moreover, the evaluation indices needed to be adjusted according to the evaluation period. It is desirable that finance support program for universities, which has been processed under the long-term schedule, needed to differentiate evaluation indices of each year.
Third, according to the evaluation standards this study suggested, the background factors such as participation types, job status, and working experience didn't make any meaningful difference of validity, but there was some validity difference in the regional factor. This gives significant suggestions about finance support program for provincial universities. When establishing evaluation standards of task to support university finance, it is important to consider the environment difference among metropolitan areas and provincial areas.
Based on the findings in this study, the following suggestions were drawn:
First, the following study is needed to examine evaluation standards where more widely related people participate.
Second, in addition to finance support program for universities, when government performs evaluation task, the study should try to examine validity of evaluation standards.
목차 (Table of Contents)
- Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
- A. 연구의 필요성 = 1
- B. 연구의 목적 및 문제 = 4
- C. 연구의 제한점 = 5
- Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 6
- Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
- A. 연구의 필요성 = 1
- B. 연구의 목적 및 문제 = 4
- C. 연구의 제한점 = 5
- Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 6
- A. 누리사업의 내용과 성과 = 6
- B. 프로그램 평가 = 16
- C. 실제 적용된 누리사업의 평가종류와 기준 = 27
- Ⅲ. 연구의 방법 = 35
- A. 기초연구 = 36
- B. 델파이조사 = 37
- C. 설문조사 = 41
- Ⅳ. 결과의 해석 및 논의 = 44
- A. 결과의 해석 = 44
- B. 논의 = 72
- Ⅴ. 요약 및 결론 = 77
- A. 요약 = 77
- B. 결론 = 80
- C. 제언 = 82
- 참고 문헌 = 83
- ABSTRACT = 90
- 부록 = 94
참고문헌 (Reference)
1. 정책분석론, 이흥재, , 2005
2. 정책평가론, 최영훈, , 2007
3. 정책학원론, 정정길, 대명, , 1992
4. http://www.wmich, JointCommitteeonStandardsforEducationalEvaluation, , 2008
5. Systematic evaluation, Shinkfield, Stufflebeam, , 1985
6. 프로그램 평가론, 배호순, 원미사, , 2003
7. Fiveevaluationframeworks, Gardner, , 1977
8. RegionalCompetitivenessand Skill, OECD, , 1997
9. 사회복지 프로그램 평가, 김형식, , 1999
10. 제2회 국정과제회의자료, 국가균형발전위원회, , 2003
1. 정책분석론, 이흥재, , 2005
2. 정책평가론, 최영훈, , 2007
3. 정책학원론, 정정길, 대명, , 1992
4. http://www.wmich, JointCommitteeonStandardsforEducationalEvaluation, , 2008
5. Systematic evaluation, Shinkfield, Stufflebeam, , 1985
6. 프로그램 평가론, 배호순, 원미사, , 2003
7. Fiveevaluationframeworks, Gardner, , 1977
8. RegionalCompetitivenessand Skill, OECD, , 1997
9. 사회복지 프로그램 평가, 김형식, , 1999
10. 제2회 국정과제회의자료, 국가균형발전위원회, , 2003
11. Proandconsaboutgoal-freeevaluation, Scriven, , 1972
12. 한국 교육행정발달사 탐구, 조성일, 집문당, 한국교육행정발달사 탐구, , 2005
13. Public policy and program evaluation, Vedung, Evert, Transaction Publishers, Publicpolicyandprogram evaluation, , 1997
14. 대학재정 지원정책 평가연구, 김두식, 단국대학교, 단국대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문, , 2002
15. 장소마케팅을 위한 축제 개발, 이어진, , 2006
16. Americanpublicpolicymaking:gettingresults, Helms, , 2004
17. Windows용 SPSS을 이용한 통계분석, 최인규, 정충영, , 1996
18. 2006누리사업 연차평가 세부계획, 교육인적자원부, , 2006
19. A quantitative approach to content validity, Lawshe, , 1975
20. NURI사업 재정지원 정책의 정치학, 조영하, 유현숙 , 한국교육정치학회, , 2007
21. NURI사업 중간평가 핵심성과 분석, 박동열, 이대창, , 2007
22. New Amos 16.0 구조 방정식 모형 분석, 김계수, New AMOS 16.0구조방정식모형 분석, , 2008
23. Program evaluation : patterns and directions, Chelimsky, Eleanor, American Society for Public Administration, Program evaluation:patternsanddirections, , 1985
24. 2007제4회 대한민국 지역혁신박람회, 구연희, , 2007
25. 전문대학 재정지원 사업 평가 분석, 문영동, 경상대학교, , 2002
26. 지방대학이 지역발전에 미치는 효과, 林承達, 대한국토·도시계획학회, , 1989
27. Public policy evaluation : approaches and methods, Nachmias, David, St. Martin's Press, Publicpolicyevaluation:approachesandmethods, , 1979
28. Locationchoicesforresearchlabs:A casestudyapproach, Harding, , 1989
29. 고등교육개혁 추진 실상 및 보완 방향, 정영수, , 2002
30. 지방대학역량강화사업 제1차 기본계획, 교육인적자원부, , 2003
31. 의과대학 평가인정 기준의 타당도 연구, 양은배, 연세대학교 대학원, 연세대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 2001
32. 정부업무평가를 위한 성과지표개발방안, 이창기, 한국정책분석평가학회, 정책분석평가학회2005년 기획세미나, , 2005
33. 대학재정 자체평가의 평가준거 개발연구, 권기욱, 大邱大學校 社會科學硏究所, "대구대학교 사회과학연구소 사회과학연구, , 2000
34. Theeffectsofcollegesanduniversitieson locallabormarkets, Montgomery, Beeson, , 1993
35. 교육정책지원의 재정적 효과성 평가 연구, 반상진, 한국교육행정학회, "교육행정학연구, , 1994
36. 영재교육 프로그램 평정척도 개발 및 적용, 송준기, 계명대학교, 계명대학교 대학원박사학위논문, , 2004
37. 산업경쟁력 제고를 위한 인적자원 개발 방안, 정진화, 최영섭, , 2002
38. 학교재정 평가를 위한 지표체계 개발의 방향, 정재균, 圓光大學校 敎育問題硏究所, "교육재정경제연구, , 2000
39. 지방대학혁신역량강화사업 운영에 관한 훈령, 교육인적자원부, , 2004
40. Theperceptiveeye:towardthereformationofeducational evaluation, Eisner, , 1975
41. 프로그램평가 지표체계의 타당성에 관한 연구, 박소희, , 2008
42. 지역 인적자원개발을 위한 지방대학 육성 방안, 백성준, , 2003
43. NURI사업이 지역경제 및 사회발전에 미치는 영향, 김현철, 정진욱, , 2007
44. 지역산업육성과 지역혁신체제 구축에 관한 연구, 윤윤규ㆍ이재호, , 2004
45. 비서의 현재 역량과 미래 역량에 대한 델파이 연구, 윤미숙, 한국비서학회, "비서학논총, , 2003
47. CIPP 평가모형에 의한 대학평가인정제의 발전방향 탐색, 정진국, 대구가톨릭대학교 대학원, 대구카톨릭대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 2000
48. 지역혁신체계구축을 위한 지방대학 혁신역량 강화방안, 국가균형발전위원회, , 2003
49. 평가에 의한 정부의 대학 재정 지원 정책 논리 분석연구, 신현석, 한국교육행정학회, "교육행정연구, , 1999
50. The Comparative Advantage ofEducated Workers in Implementing New Technology, Bartel, Frank R.Lichtenberg, , 1987
51. Regional advantage : culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Saxenian, AnnaLee, Harvard University Press, Regionaladvantage:cultureandcompetitioninsiliconvalleyandroute128, , 1994
52. Knowledgeimpactsofuniversitiesonindustries:An aggregatesimultaneousinvestmentmodel, Florax, Folmer, , 1992
53. Localgeographicspilloversbetween university research and high technology innovation, Zoltan, Attila, Anselin, , 1997
54. 지방대학 혁신역량강화(NURI)사업에 대한 고객만족도 조사 연구, 이장익 ( Jang Ik Lee ), 한국농업교육학회, , 2006
55. 연구개발 프로그램평가의 이론과 실제에 관한 텍스트북 작성 연구, 오동훈, 손병호, , 2007
56. NURI(누리)사업 1차 사업자 선정 결과 사업단별 클러스터 유형분석연구, 조대훈, , 2007
57. 분석적 계층화 과정법에 의한 전문대학의 교육 효과성 평가지표 개발, 박동열, 정철영, 한국직업교육학회, , 1999
58. 지방대학 혁신역량 강화사업 선정 평가의 타당도 및 신뢰도 검토 연구, 이병식, 한국교육개발원, "한국교육, , 2005
59. TheCIPPmodelforprogram evaluation,InG.F.Madaus,M.Scriven,& D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.),Evaluationmodels, Stufflebeam, "TheCIPPmodelforprogram evaluation, , 1983
60. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches, Guba, E. G., Effectiveevaluation:improvingtheusefulness of evaluation results through responsive andnaturalisticapproaches, , 1981
분석정보
이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료
나만을 위한 추천자료
