本研究目的在運用資訊科技建構學校績效管理的網路平台，以協助管理者、評鑑者與個人進行有效的績效管理。研究對象採立意取樣，選擇願意參與本研究之3所學校，調查對象之有效樣本為3所學校74位使用者（8位評鑑委員、13位教師、3位校長及50位行政人員）。參與者以一學期的時間進行評鑑指標資料之上傳與管理，上傳資料以word檔居多（82%），其次為PDF（15%）、影音檔及其他（3%）。績效指標是以鄭新輝（2010）所建構之「整合性學校績效管理關鍵績效指標」為架構，共分成三大類、十六個層面、八十個指標。先透過焦點團體座談、網路管理平台建置、資料上傳、專家評鑑、問卷調查等歷程，再以描述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定與單因子變異數等統計方法進行分析。研究結果顯示：一、以行為錨定法可明確化各績效指標的檢證標準、方式與證據來源。二、績效管理平台的「介面親和度」、「運作功能性」、「使用滿意度」與「推廣可行性」等四大面向，在五等量表中平均達3.82～3.89分，顯示以網路管理平台進行學校績效管理，具良好的可行性及效益性。有六成二以上的使用者，同意使用本系統以輔助個人進行績效管理與評鑑。三、教育程度與上網時間的長短，會影響使用者對網路管理平台運用的效益性及滿意度看法。綜而言之，本研究開創學校績效管理與評鑑數位化的先機，將學校績效指標以行為錨定法，系統化地建構客觀檢證標準、檢證方式與證據來源，並據以規劃可提供管理者、評鑑者與個人進行績效管理的網路管理平台，可有效強化學校與個人定期進行自我管理，以提升學校整體的經營品質。

» 展開更多

1. 尹玫君、蘇彥寧（2011）。建置網路學習小組議題報告電腦化評量機制之研究。課程與教學季刊，14（2），55-74。【Yin, M.-C., & Su, Y.-N. (2011). The study on developing a computerized assessment system for report of web-based learning. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 14(2), 55-74.】
2. 王冬雅（2004）。雲林縣國民小學實施校長評鑑制度之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立中正大學，嘉義縣。【Wang, D.-Y. (2004). Research on elementary school principals’ evaluation in Yulin County (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi County, Taiwan.】
3. 吳清山（2001）。中小學實施校長評鑑的挑戰課題與因應策略。教育研究月刊，84，28-36。【Wu, C.-S. (2001). Challenges and strategies of implementing principal evaluation at primary and secondary schools. Journal of Education Research, 84, 28-36.】
4. 吳淑妤（2003）。國民小學校長評鑑標準歷程與方法之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。【Wu, S.-Y. (2003). Elementary school principal standards, the process of principal assessment and assessing methods (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei Teachers College, Taipei, Taiwan.】
5. 宋曜廷（編著）（2011）。數位學習研究方法。臺北市：高等教育。【Sung, Y.-T. (Ed.). (2011). Research methodology for e-learning. Taipei, Taiwan: Higher Education.】
6. 宋曜廷、潘佩妤（2010）。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55（4），97-130。doi:10.3966/2073753X2010125504004【Sung, Y.-T., & Pan, P.-Y. (2010). Applications of mixed methods research in educational studies. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 55(4), 97-130.doi:10.3966/2073753X2010125504004】
7. 李有在（2006）。台中市國民小學校務評鑑實施之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺中師範學院，臺中市。【Lee, Y.-T. (2006). A research on the practice of elementary school evaluation in Taichung City (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taichung Normal College, Taichung, Taiwan.】
8. 張德銳、張芬芬、邱錦昌、張明輝、熊曣、萬家春…李俊達（2002）。台北市中小學教學輔導教師制度九十學年度實施成效評鑑報告。臺北市政府教育局委託專案研究報告（未出版）。臺北市：臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所。【Zhang, D.-R., Zhang, F.-F., Qiu, J.-C., Zhang, M.-H., Xiong, Y., Wan, C.-C. …Lee, C.-D. (2002). The evaluation report of implementing education tutor system at primary and secondary schools in Taipei during ninety academic year. Unpublished research report for Department of Education, Taipei City Government. Taipei, Taiwan: Graduate Institute of Compulsory Education, Taipei Municipal Teachers College.】
9. 許明峰（2005）。國民小學教師評鑑手冊建構之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立新竹師範學院，新竹市。【Hsu, M.-F. (2005). A study on the development of elementary school teacher evaluation manual (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Hsinchu Teachers College, Hsinchu, Taiwan.】
10. 郭昭佑（2007）。教育評鑑研究：原罪與解放。臺北市：五南。【Guo, Z.-Y. (2007). Educational research and evaluation: Original sin and liberation. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】
11. 陳向明（2002）。社會科學質性研究。臺北市：五南。【Chen, X.-M. (2002). Qualitative research of social science. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】
12. 陳忠本（2004）。國民小學校長評鑑之研究－以屏東縣國民小學為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立屏東師範學院，屏東市。【Chen, Z.-M. (2004). A study of elementary school principal evaluation: A case study of elementary school in Pingtung (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Pingtung Teachers College, Pingtung, Taiwan.】
13. 陳得利（2002）。網路化歷程檔案系統之設計與實作（未出版碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。【Chen, D.-L. (2002). Design and implementation of a web-based portfolio supporting system (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.】
14. 陳漢強、周淑惠（1993）。台灣省、台北市、高雄市幼稚園評鑑手冊。臺北市：教育部。【Chen, H.-C., & Zhou, S.-H. (1993). Kindergarten evaluation manual for Taiwan, Taipei, and Kaohsiung. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.】
15. 鈕文英（2006）。教育研究方法與論文寫作。臺北市：雙葉書廊。【Niu, W.-Y. (2006). Educational research methods and thesis writing. Taipei, Taiwan: Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.】
16. 榮泰生（2006）。管理資訊系統。臺北市：五南。【Rong, T.-S. (2006). Management information system. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.】
17. 蔡金柱（2004）。高雄市國民小學校長評鑑制度規劃之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。【Tsai, J.-C. (2004). A study on the master plan of evaluation system for elementary school principals in Kaohsiung City (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.】
18. 蔡培村、鄭彩鳳（2008）。九十七學年度高級中學校務評鑑－評鑑委員手冊。臺中市：教育部中部辦公室。【Tsai, P.-C., & Zheng, C.-F. (2008). The senior high school evaluation for ninety-seven academic year: Evaluation committee manual. Taichung, Taiwan: The Taichung Office of the Ministry of Education.】
19. 鄭新輝（2002）。規劃實施校長評鑑的可能缺失與因應：後設評鑑的觀點。研習資訊，19（6），8-26。【Cheng, H.-H. (2002). The potential defect and solution base on implementation of principal evaluation: From the view of meta-evaluation. Educators and Professional Development, 19(6), 8-26.】
20. 鄭新輝（2008）。台南縣國民中小學校務評鑑方案研究。臺南縣政府委託研究報告（未出版）。臺南縣：臺南縣政府教育處。【Cheng, H.-H. (2008). The study of school affairs evaluation project of elementary and junior high schools in Tainan County. Unpublished research report for Tainan County Government. Tainan County, Taiwan: Bureau of Education, Tainan County Government.】
21. 鄭新輝（2010）。國民中小學整合性績效管理系統關鍵績效指標建構之研究。科技部專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC98-2410-H-024-002）。臺南市：國立臺南大學。【Cheng, H.-H. (2010). Construction of key performance indicators for integrated school performance management system of elementary and junior high schools. Ministry of Science and Technology project report (NSC98-2410-H-024-002). Tainan, Taiwan: National University of Tainan.】
22. 鄭新輝、林文展（2011）。國民中小學校長辦學績效評鑑手冊建構。99年教育部委託專案研究報告（未出版）。臺北市：教育部。【Cheng, H.-H., & Lin, W.-C. (2011). A study on construction of the principal performance evaluation manual for elementary and junior high schools. Unpublished research report for Ministry of Education. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.】
23. 鄭新輝、鍾廣翰（2012）。善用資訊科技提升校長辦學績效評鑑之效能：網路管理平台之建構與運用。教育研究月刊，224，44-57。【Cheng, H.-H., & Chung, G.-H. (2012). Enhancing the effectiveness of the performance evaluation of principals by using information technology: Construction and application of network management platform. Journal of Education Research, 224, 44-57.】
24. 鍾榮茂（2006）。高雄縣國民小學教育人員及家長對校長評鑑意見之調查研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。【Chung, J.-M. (2006). A survey of educational personnel’s and students’ parents’ attitudes towards the elementary school principal evaluation in Kaohsiung County (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.】
25. 羅英豪（2000）。國民中學校長辦學績效評鑑指標之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。【Luo, I.-H. (2000). The research evaluation indicators of junior high school principals’ managing performance (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.】
26. Alabama State Department of Education. (2002). Alabama professional education personnel evaluation program for principals: Evaluation manual. Montgomery, AL: Author. 
27. Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116. doi:10.1080/0158791090 2845949
28. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1080/ 01587910902845949
29. Chung, G.-H. (2009). Developing effective distance instance using educational theories and content management system for distance learning course, strategies, tool and content. STUT Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 155-217.
30. Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2011). Designing principal evaluation systems: Research to guide decision-making. Washington, DC: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
31. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
32. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluation educators (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
33. Li, Y.-N., Tan, K.-C., & Xie, M. (2002). Measuring web-based service quality. Total Quality Management, 13(5), 685-700. doi:10.1080/0954412022000002072
34. MacBeath, J. (2006). School inspection and self-evaluation: Working with the new relationship. London, UK: Routledge.
35. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H.-C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11. 007
37. O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17-37.
38. Palmer, J. W. (2002). Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 151-167. doi:10.1287/isre.13.2.151.88
39. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

中文APA引文格式	鄭新輝、鍾廣翰、王怡芳(2014)。運用資訊科技於學校關鍵績效指標評鑑：網路績效管理平台建置之研究。教育科學研究期刊，59(4)，27-36。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(4).02
APA Format	Cheng, H.-H., Chung, G.-H., & Wang I.-F. (2014). Application of Information Technology for Key Performance Indicators: Construction of a Digitized Performance Evaluation Platform Teaching Comprehension Strategy Combined with Newspaper Reading to Grade-4 Students. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 59(4), 27-63. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(4).02

    The purpose of this study was to develop specific rating standards, data collection methods, and sources for various key performance indicators (KPIs) to establish a digitized performance management platform that can increase the effectiveness of school management and evaluation. The sample was recruited from elementary schools in Tainan and Kaohsiung. A total of 74 participants from three schools (including eight evaluation committee members, 13 teachers, three principals, and 50 faculty members) uploaded KPI data over a period of one semester. The indicators were developed by the researcher; three categories, 16 levels, and 80 indicators were produced. By using focus groups and information technology, a digitized performance management platform was established, the reference material for the evaluation indicators was uploaded, and expert rating and questionnaire survey were conducted; the descriptive statistics and quantitative data were analyzed using the independent-samples t test and one-way analysis of variance. The findings provided a guideline for examining the indicators and source of the reference material Moreover, the user survey of the digitized evaluation platform can be divided into four parts: the user friendliness of the interface, system functions, user satisfaction, and feasibility of promoting the system. The result indicated that the system exhibited high feasibility and efficiency (mean=3.82－3.89). Positive feedback regarding user satisfaction and the feasibility of promoting the system was received from 62.1% of the users. In addition, the educational level and time spent using the Internet affected respondents’ opinions on the efficiency and user satisfaction. In conclusion, this was the first study to combine performance indicators with a digitized platform to facilitate web management and systemize KPIs. The proposed digitized platform can enable schools and individuals to periodically conduct self-management and improve school administrative effectiveness.