An Empirical Study of Benchmark of Universities : With Reference to the University Evaluation and Quality Assurance

大学标杆实证研究:以大学评价与质量保证为参考

• 批准号: 19601003
• 负责人: 小林 雅之
• 金额: $ 2.83万
• 依托单位: The University of Tokyo
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 2007 至 2009
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-19601003/
• 关键词: 教育学; 大学評価; 質保証; 高等教育政策; IR; 戦略的計画

The purpose of this research project is studying benchmark methods in higher education, in order to assure and enhance the individual higher education institutions. To accomplish this purpose the data of individual higher educations are gathered mainly from the published sources such as homepages of institutions. Simultaneously we had intensive interviews for higher education institutions and public institutes such as Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in England. In England subject benchmark statements are used for the reference of enhancement and assurance of each university. In the United States the intermediate organizations such as Consortium for Financing of Higher Education (COFHE) or American Association of Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) have an important role in benchmarking. Based on these findings we make a benchmark model and try a tentative benchmark of nine universities in four countries. It is very difficult to compare the figures because the definitions of the most basic characteristics such as student numbers or faculty numbers are very different among countries. However we can compare the rough sketches of nine universities, and found there are so many common characteristics such as student numbers. We can show the usefulness of our model.

本研究旨在研究高等教育中的基准方法，以确保和提高个别高等教育机构。为了实现这一目的，主要从出版的来源，如机构的主页收集个人高等教育的数据。同时，我们对高等教育机构和公共机构，如英国高等教育质量保证局进行了密集的采访。英国的学科基准报告是各大学提高和保证学科水平的参考依据。在美国，高等教育筹资联盟（COFHE）或美国大学数据交换协会（AAUDE）等中间组织在基准制定方面发挥着重要作用。在此基础上，我们建立了一个基准模型，并对四个国家的九所大学进行了尝试性的基准测试。很难比较这些数字，因为各国对学生人数或教师人数等最基本特征的定义非常不同。然而，我们可以比较九所大学的大致轮廓，发现有很多共同的特征，如学生人数。我们可以证明我们模型的有效性。