第五章 研究結論與建議
第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議
本研究在資料的蒐集、分析與研究過程當中，雖然已經力求完備，然而在研 究過程中，受限於時間、成本及個人學識等影響，仍受到數項的研究限制，以下 為本研究之研究限制並對未來研究提出建議：
85
1.橫斷面研究之限制
由於時間與人力之限制，本研究是進行橫斷面之研究。因此本研究之推論受 限於某一時點，而無法以長時間的縱斷面資料去探討變數間可能的因果關 係。建議之後的研究可以朝向做探討。
2.研究對象侷限
本研究調查對象為文理補習班，未能將所有補習班涵蓋進去，因此本研究結 果之推論，仍有不足。而在問卷的設計和調查為顧及補習班類型的代表性問 題，所代表的全體，均以補習班經營者與班主任等高階主管為對象，造成無 法正確地顯示補教業整體性或全面性的實際現況，乃本研究調查之缺失。
3.理論基礎的選擇
本研究是採用「計畫行為理論」來分析補習教育業者參與補習班評鑑的 行為，後續研究者可以採用不同的理論來解釋補習教育業者參與補習班評鑑 的行為，再來比較兩者的結果之差異。而，評鑑最嚴重的議題尌是公帄的問 題，也許接下來的研究可以從公帄理論來切入並深入探討之。
4.套用在其他種教育評鑑
本研究主要是探討補習教育業者參與補習班評鑑的行為，後續研究者可以 將「計畫行為理論」運用在不同的教育評鑑上(校務評鑑/高等教育評鑑/帅稚 園評鑑等)，解釋被評鑑者的行為。
86
87
簡建忠 (1994)。教學科技與總結性評鑑。教學科技與媒體，15，12-19。
陳聖謨 (1997)。國小教師對教師評鑑制度態度之研究。初等教育學報, 10，
88
遠見雜誌 (2011)。2011 年 5 月號，「用創意，實踐企業社會責任 /2011 第七屆 遠見雜誌 企業社會責任獎」。遠見雜誌。
劉正 (2006)。補習在臺灣的變遷、效能與階層化。教育研究集刊，52(4)，1-34。
潘慧玲 (2004)。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。載於國立臺灣師範大學 教育研究中心舉辦之「教育評鑑回顧與展望學術研討會」會議論文集，
11-23。
鄭文實 (2007)。國小組織氣氛、教師自我效能感與專業評鑑意願之相關研究。
國立台東大學教育系所碩士論文。
鄭彩鳳 (2008)。學校行政研究─理論與實務。高雄市。麗文。
鄭崇趁 (2006)。國民中小學校務評鑑指標及實施方式。台北市: 心理。
盧增緒 (1995)。論教育評鑑觀念之形成，載於中國教育協會主編，教育評鑑。
台北: 師大書苑。
賴其勛 (2001)。消費者行為。台中: 滄海書局。
謝文全 (1989)。教育行政-理論與實務。台北: 文景出版社。
謝文全 (2004)。教育行政學。台北市: 高等教育。
榮泰生 (2008)。企業研究方法，第三版，台北：五南文化。
翁望回 (1987)。企業正當性之實證研究：社會責任的觀點，國立政治大學企業 管理研究所博士論文。
二、網路參考文獻
台北市政府教育局 (2011)。2010,12,20。取自
http://www.edunet.taipei.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1797765&ctNode=33799&mp=1040 01
台灣企業社會責任協會 (2011)。2011,02,14。取自 http://www.csrtaiwan.org/index.php
教育部直轄市及各縣市短期補習班資訊管理系統 (2011)。2011,04,25。 取自 http://bsb.edu.tw
劉亦權 (2007)。當前補習教育現況及其對國家考詴之影響。2008年10月1日，
2011.04.25。 取自 http://wwwc.moex.gov.tw/public/Data/76119422971.pdf
89
三、英文文獻：
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. NY:
Heidelberg, Germany：Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2003). The theory of planned behavior. In M. A. Hogg (Ed.), Social psychologyvolumeⅠ:Social cognition and social perception (pp.347-377).
Thousand Oask, CA:Sage.
Ajzen, I., & Madden T. J. (1986). Prediction of Goal-directed Behavior:Attitude, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Ajzen, I., & Madden T. J.(1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. . Chicago:
Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I., & Madden T. J. (2002a). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683
Ajzen, I., & Madden T. J. (2006). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. from
http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdftpb.measurement.pdf.
Ajzen I.,＆Fishbein,M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, englewood cliffs. NY: Prentice-Hall.
Alkin, F. (1990). Debates on evaluation. CA: Sage.
Aloson Mackey, T. B. M., & Jay B. Barney. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performace: Investor preferences andcorporate strategies Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817-835.
Armstrong, S. R. (1988). Perceptions of principals and teachers toward mandated teacherevaluation.
Ayers, J. B. (1989). Evaluating workshops and institutes. Research and Evaluation, 1(8).
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Boulding, W., Staelin, A., Kalra, R. & Zeithaml,V. A. (1993).A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 30,7-27.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social reponsibility of the businessman. New York: Harper＆
Row.
Bryane, M. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility in International Development: An Overview and Critique. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment
90
Management,, 10, 115-128.
Buunk-Werkhoven, Y. A. B., Dijkstra, Arie,van der Schans, Cees P. (2011).
Determinants of oral hygiene behavior: a study based on the theory of planned behavior. Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology 39(3), 250-259.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A-three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social ResponsibilityEvolution of a Definitional Construct. Academy of Management Review, 7(3).
Chiang, F.K., Wuttke, Heinz Dietrich,Knauf, Rainer,Sun, Chung-Shan,Tso, Tai-Cheng. (2011). Attitudes of German University Students towards the Integration of Innovation Information Technology. International Journal Of Engineering Education ,27(2), 431-446.
Clarkson, M. B. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. . Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cronbach, L. J. (1983). Course Improvement through Evaluation. Boston:
Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Cousins, J. B. (1998). Organizational consequences of participatory evaluation:
School district case study. In K. Leithwood, & K. S. Louis (Eds.),
Organizational learning in schools (pp. 127-148). Lisse, The Netherlands:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L.(1975). Business and society: Environment and responsibility(3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill
Drucker, E. (1993). Molecular Epidemiology Meets the Fourth World (Commentary):
the Lancet.
Eells, R. and C. Walton. (1974). Conceptual foundations of business. (3nd ed.).
Georgetown, Ontario: Irwin-Dorsey Limited.
Engel J. F., B. R. D., & Miniard P. W. (1995). “Consumer Behavior”8th, ForthWorth.
Texas: Dryden Press.
Ferrell, O., J. Fraedrich, and L. Ferrell. 2005. Business ethics: ethical decision making and cases. Boston：New York.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
91
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. . (2004). Program
evaluation:Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston:
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent Attribution Reasearch in Consumer Behavior:A Review and New Directions. Journal of Consumer Reserach, 14(Mar), 548-565.
Forste, R., Clarke, Lynda, Bahr, Stephen. (2011). Staying Out of Trouble: Intentions of Young Male Offenders. International Journal Of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(3), 430-444.
Freeman, P. K. (1984). Strategic management : A stakeholder approach. Boston:
Pitman Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.
New York Times Magazine, 122-126.
Getindamar, D., & Husoy, K. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Case of the United Nations Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 163-176.
Gronlund, N. E. (1971). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching(3rd ed). New York:
Macmillan publishing.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
House, E. R. (1993). Professional evaluation. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Huang, C. J. (2010). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance. Journal of management & organization ,16(5), 641-655.
Katz, D. S., E. (1959). A preliminary seatement of a theory of attitude structure &
change. In S. Koch(Ed. ), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3). New York:
McGrawHill.
Kyriakides, L., & Campbell, R. J. (2004). chool self-evaluation and school improvement:A critique of values and procedures. Studies in Educational Evaluation., 30, 23-36.
Mackey (2005). Mackey A., T. B. Mackey and J. B. Barney 2007“Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies”, The Academy of Management Review (AMR),32(3),817-835.
Marsh, C. J. (1999). Curriculum- alter-native approaches ,ongoing issues (2ed.).
U.S.A: Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the technology
Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Information Systems
92
Research, 2(3), 173-191.
Mathison, S. (1996). Evaluation as a democratizing force in schools. International Journal of Social Education. International Journal of Social Education 11(1), 40-47.
Quazi, A. M., & O`Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 33-51.
Reichheld, F. F. a. W. E. S., Jr. (1990). Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services.
Harvard Business Review, 68, No.September-October,105-111.
Roger, G., & Badham, L. (1992). Evaluation in School. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Scriven, M. (1967).The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake(Ed.). Curriculum evaluation. American education research association monograph series on evaluation, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Scriven, M. (1981). Joint committee on satandards for educational
evaluation,standard for evaluation of educational programs and materials.
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Scriven, M. (1994). Evaluation as a discipline. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 147-166.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58-64.
Steiner, G. A., (1980). “Business and Society”, New York.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). nstitutionalizing evaluation in schools. In T. Kellaghan,D.
L. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part Two: Practice Two: Practice Kluwer: Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. Boston:
Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Vandekerckhove W. & Dentchev N. A. (2005). A Network Perspective on Stakeholder management: Facilitating Entrepreneurs in the Discovery of Opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics(60), 221-232.
Wagner, M. (2011). Corporate performance implications of extended stakeholder management: New insights on mediation and moderation effects. Ecologial Economics,70(5), 942-950.
WBCSD：World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Wood, D., (1991). “Corporate social performance revisited”, Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 697-718.
Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational Evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
93
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
94
95
96
非 不 普 同 非 常 常 不 同 同 同
意 意 通 意 意 2. 我會說服同行一貣去參與『補習班評鑑』。
3. 如果政府或民間評鑑機構有提供『獎勵』，我才會想參加『補 習班評鑑』。
4. 如果不參加『補習班評鑑』，政府會『限制』補習班某些權 益，我才會參加。
5. 假如可以的話，我是『不想』參加『補習班評鑑』。
第五部分：【行為表現】
1. 未來，我願意參加『補習班評鑑』。
2. 未來，我打算參加『補習班評鑑』。’
3. 未來，我認為我將會參加『補習班評鑑』。
二、個人資料
1.性別： (1) □ 男 (2) □ 女
2.年齡： (1) □ 二十一歲到三十歲(2) □三十一歲到四十歲 (3) □ 四十一歲到五十歲(4) □五十一歲到六十歲 (5) □ 六十歲以上
3.教育程度： (1) □ 高中職(2) □ 大專 (3) □ 大學(4) □ 碩士(含)以上 4.職位：(1) □ 經營者(2) □ 班主任 (3) □ 其他
5.進入職場經歷(年)： (1) □ 1~5年 (2) □ 6~10年(3) □11~15年 (4) □ 16~20年(5) □21~25年(6) □26年以上 6.進入目前公司年資(年)： (1) □ 1~5年 (2) □ 6~10年(3) □11~15年 (4) □ 16~20年(5) □21~25年(6) □26年以上
***本問卷到此為止(共三面)，麻煩您再檢查一下，是否有題目漏答!***
非常感謝您的協助