跨國餐旅觀光休閒學門品質評量工具之研究

A Study on a Transnational Instrument for Measuring the Quality of Undergraduate Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Programs

鄧之卿(Chih-Ching Teng)

指導教授 ： 洪久賢

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/人類發展與家庭學系/博士(2007年)

摘要

由於全球餐旅觀光休閒系所的數量急速擴充，教育品質的議題在國際間已然成為令人關注的焦點，加上影響此學門品質的構面與指標亟待驗證，故發展國際適用的餐旅觀光休閒學門品質評量工具之重要性不言而喻。本研究目的在於：（1）探討跨國餐旅觀光休閒學門品質的關鍵因素及指標構面；（2）發展跨國餐旅觀光休閒學門品質評量工具，考驗此評量工具之信效度及各因素之相對貢獻程度；（3）檢測此跨國品質評量工具之複核效度，據以探討此評量工具之延展性和可行性。此品質評量工具的面向融合了CIPP模式及MBNQA的指標概念，且整合ACPHA、QAA、TedQual、以及NRPA等國際餐旅、觀光、休閒學門品質系統之共同性。本研究經由完整的三階段量表發展程序，以美國（N = 303）及台灣（N = 430）之餐旅觀光休閒管理系所的教師為對象，調查其對於任教系所的品質知覺。本研究的主要發現如下：

一、本研究根據理論及探索性因素分析的建議提出修正模式，將原本的「課程」和「教學與學習」因素合併，成為一個新的初階因素「課程與教學」。因此，本研究的修正模式為二階六因素的模式。

二、本研究驗證性因素分析結果支持修正模式作為跨國餐旅觀光休閒學門品質評量工具之假設，此評量工具包含以「系所品質」為首的高階潛在因素；另包括有「策略性規劃」、「課程與教學」、「資源」、「教師」、「學生成就」以及「行政管理」等六個初階品質因素；加上反映各個因素項下的12個觀察變項（依序為願景、使命及目標；自我改善；課程；教學與學習；教研資源與管理；教研空間；師資；教師表現；學生表現；系友回饋；行政領導；學生事務等）以及代表各觀察變項的62個指標題項。

三、本研究評量工具經由美國樣本的複核效化程序，結果獲得良好的適配，因而確認此跨國品質評量工具具有跨樣本的延展性和可行性。另外經由競爭模式的比較，結果支持本研究的修正模式是一個測量品質較佳的工具。

四、本研究學門品質關鍵因素的相對貢獻程度皆很高，且美國與我國樣本的認知並無顯著差異。這六個關鍵因素的因素負荷量介於0.75至0.97之間，貢獻比重依序為「課程與教學」、「教師」、「行政管理」、「學生成就」、「策略性規劃」以及「資源」。

本研究所發展的跨國品質評量工具能夠提供學術界及教育實務界有效衡量系所品質的各個面向，可作為系所自評及內部品質評鑑的參考依據。另此跨國評量工具亦能作為教育評鑑單位及學門系所訂定國際認證資格架構及學門品質認可的標準/指標，據以提供跨國評鑑及教育比較的基準。

關鍵字

跨國教育品質 ； 學門品質 ； 評量工具 ； 觀光 ； 餐旅 ； 休閒教育

並列摘要

Quality of education has drawn a lot of attention since the number of undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programs (HTLPs) has risen rapidly around the world. However, it is difficult to define educational constructs such as “quality”, so there has been little empirical investigation of educational quality for HTLPs. Accordingly, it is essential to develop a transnational quality instrument to measure the quality of HTLPs. This study has three purposes: (1) to investigate the key factors and indicators of the quality of HTLPs; (2) to develop and verify the reliability, validity and the relative importance of key factors of a transnational instrument which measures the quality of HTLPs and (3) to cross-validate this instrument and verify its transnational extension and feasibility. This comprehensive instrument considers the perspectives of CIPP and MBNQA, and integrates the similarities in the quality standards/ indicators of ACPHA, QAA, TedQual and NRPA. This study adopted three stage scale development procedures to develop and validate the instrument. Survey responses from the US sample (N = 303) and Taiwan sample (N= 430) who teach at HTLPs were used to verify this instrument. The major findings of this study are as follows:

First, the results of EFA and theory suggest a modified model, which combines two factors “curriculum” and “teaching and learning” into one new first-order factor “curriculum and instruction”. Thus, the modified model is a second-order, with six first-order factors, measurement model.

Second, the results of CFA support the hypotheses of the modified model as an instrument. This instrument consists of two orders of constructs with program quality on top; six quality dimensions are first-order factors, including strategic planning, curriculum and teaching, resources, faculty, student achievements, and administrative management; 12 observed variables come underneath these dimensions; and finally, 62 indicators come underneath the corresponding observed variables.

Third, the cross-validation results of the US sample provide strong evidence that the modified model is a cross-national instrument with good fit. The results from competing model comparisons also identify better psychometric quality for this modified model than the rest of competing models.

Fourth, the results show that each key factor has a great contribution to program quality in terms of sample groups. The values of six factor loadings are among 0.75 and 0.97. Among the six factors, “curriculum and teaching” and “faculty” have the highest loadings; next come “administrative management”, “student achievements” and “strategic planning”; the last is “resources”.

This instrument not only contributes to theory development but also provides insights into practice. It can reflect the quality of the different dimensions of HTLPs, thus can act as global benchmarks of self evaluation and an internal quality control tool for both accreditors and HTLPs. Moreover, this instrument can be an external quality assurance scheme which provides a comparison basis of transnational education evaluation. The quality factors/ indicators of this instrument can also be served as standards/ indicators of international certification and accreditation systems for HTLPs.

並列關鍵字

Transnational education quality ； Program quality ； Instrument ； Tourism ； Hospitality ； Leisure higher education

參考文獻

王如哲（2005）。高等教育品質管理機制之國際經驗。台灣教育，632，21-29。

王保進（2006）。標竿取向的高等教育評鑑標準設計之研究。教育研究月刊，142，9-32。

吳清山（1998）。學校效能研究。台北：五南。

洪久賢、鄧之卿、李銘輝、劉元安（2006）。英國高等教育評鑑對我國餐旅觀光休閒學門評鑑之啟示。觀光研究學報，12（4），273-294。

翁福榮、廖春文（2005）。全面品質管理與平衡計分卡在學校經營策略應用之整合模式探討。台中教育大學學報：教育類，19（2），99-126。