• 대학교육
• /
• s.148
• /
• pp.53-61
• /
• 2007

지금까지 대학교육의 질적인 측면을 평가하려는 다양한 지표 개발이 있었다. 교육의 성과를 간접적으로 평가하는 지표들이 대표적인 사례다. 하지만 지표들이 질적인 측면을 제대로 평가하지 못한다는 한계점을 드러내왔다. 이를 볼 때 커리큘럼 평가는 해당 분야의 전문가들을 대상으로 한 동료평가 방식으로 진행하는 것이 타당하며 통계상의 오류를 방지하기 위한 보완이 뒤따라야 할 것이다.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.309-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to develop evaluation indicators for academic libraries in Korea. The evaluation model developed in this research consists of three elements:(1) Confirmation of evaluation methods, procedures and criteria,(2) Development of qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators, and(3) Assessment of the applicability and feasibility of those indicators. Evaluation indicators were developed to measure a basic state, a common use of library resources, specialized services, and user satisfaction for academic libraries. To test the feasibility and applicability of those evaluation indicators, a pilot assessment of academic libraries was conducted in 2010.

• Korean Journal of Comparative Education
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.125-152
• /
• 2016

This study aims to analyze the impacts of the QS Asia University Rankings (QSAUR) indicators and to compare the scores obtained by major countries. Hierarchical multiple regression was performed on the results of the QSAUR 2013-2015 and the average indicator and overall scores of each country were calculated. In the QSAUR, the most influential indicator was academic reputation. Each indicator's influence corresponded to its assigned weights and standard deviations. The results of the comparison revealed that Japan, South Korea, and China had the largest number of institutions among the top 150, while Singapore maintained the highest average scores on the indicators as well as the overall score. Each country had different areas that required improvement. South Korean colleges scored lower than some countries on academic reputation, papers per faculty, and international faculty. To attain higher ranks in the QSAUR, academic reputation, institutions' research capability improvement, and internationalization are needed. The implementation of these strategies is necessary to diminish the gap between South Korean institutions and other Asian institutions.

• Journal of the Korean Society for information Management
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.239-264
• /
• 2001

The aim of this study is to compare and analyse the evaluation or performance indicators for academic libraries suggested at domestic and foreign. For the study, evaluation indicators of the various evaluation models(IFLA, ISO, ALA/ACRL, LA, HEFCE, CERLIM, JUAA, UNICOOP. KLA) was analysized. Evaluation or performance indicators should shed light on inputs and outputs of resource, levels of demand and satisfaction, the library effectiveness, and operating efficiency. There is a great deal of work going on at present, but as yet there is no greed set of indicators that can be across all academic libraries. Therefore, new evaluation indicators for physical and electronic libraries should be developed.

• Korean Journal of Comparative Education
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.25-58
• /
• 2009

This study aimed to establish a conceptual scheme of the quality of university and to develop a set of structured indicators for assessing the quality of university based on the result of comparative analysis of major approaches in foreign countries. Reviewing extensive literatures regarding the quality of higher education, a conceptual scheme of the quality of university, in which three representative approaches such as a goal-accomplishment approach, a customer-satisfaction approach, and a value-added approach were emphasized, was proposed and the quality of university was defined as a function of harmonization of input-process-output elements of universities. To develop indicators for assessing the quality of university, four types of approaches including university accreditation system, commercially-producted university ranking system, college student survey, and direct assessment of students' learning outcomes were reviewed. Finally thirteen sets of evaluation indicators out of six countries were comparatively analyzed. The analyses focused on the format, the content, and the primary concept of the quality in each instrument and a draft of the assessment indicators were structured. The draft of the assessment indicators were verified through a panel of professionals. The final indicators assessing the quality of university consist of three dimensions and seven areas. The input dimension comprised institutional goals, human resources, and physical resources. In the process dimension, curriculum and learning process areas were included. And, finally, the output dimension consists of educational outputs and research outputs. Based on the outcomes of the study, the recommendations were suggested for improving and utilizing the assessment indicators of the quality of university.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.295-322
• /
• 2017

As a first step in developing a more effective and robust approach to faculty research performance assessment, this study analyzed the existing faculty research assessment methods by comparing Korean universities' research evaluation standards, National Research Foundation of Korea's (KRF) standard for assessing research proposals, and various bibliometric measures. The study data included research evaluation standards of KRF along with 27 Korean universities with Library and Information Science (LIS) department, and the publication data of 183 LIS faculties in Korean universities from 2001 to 2015, which consisted of 3,863 papers 16,978 citations. After the comparative analysis of research evaluation standards, the study examined the rankings of institutions and faculty produced by applying the collected standards and bibliometric metrics to the publication data. The study showed that Korean university standards for research evaluation, which aim to consider both productivity and impact of faculty research, differ from similar bibliometric measures such as h-index, and the difference could significantly impact the assessment of faculty research performance.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.71-92
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to identify the service factors of university libraries which aim to improve the educational welfare of the disabled, and to develop an evaluation indicator to evaluate these vital service factors. To proceed with this study, guidelines of public library services for people with disabilities, and previous research and job description of academy library analysed and developed indicators suited for evaluating academic library services for people with disabilities. A pilot survey and main survey about the evaluation factors and indicators conducted with librarians who work for university libraries, and the questions were refined by exploratory factor analysis of the data collected from the survey. As a result, through the process of identifying reliability and validity, it turned out that the evaluation factor and subordinate index of university library services for the disabled consisted of 8 factors and 33 indicators.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2008

Performance indicators for academic libraries in Korea suggested in this research cover three areas, that is, collection, budget, and human resources, which consists of three subdivisions, respectively. Performance indicators and action plans in this research were prepared, based on the official documents which universities in Korea formally submitted to the Ministry of Education and Human Resources, and the data published by the related institutions. Performance indicators and action plans are intended to draw attentions of university administrators and headquarters, but do not require librarians to prepare for evaluation. The better results would be expected with the development and application of both quantitative and qualitative indicators for information services by standardizing and unifying the process of collecting statistics. It is also expected that periodic and continuing evaluation of academic libraries could help government and universities have a better understanding of and appreciate the significance of academic libraries.

• Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2015

The top thirty universities in 2014 by the college rankings of the Korea Joongang Daily were chosen for the samples of this study to find how much academic libraries affect the competitiveness of universities. Evaluation scores of the universities in four areas, and building size, budgets, the number of collections and personnels were also decided as the variables in this study. The influence to the universities' evaluation and rankings of their libraries through average and correlation analysis was studied. The major findings of the study are: (1) Average analysis between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas found that there were significant differences in globalization indicators, reputation, and social advance degree. Also, (2) Correlation analysis found that library budgets and the number of personnel highly affected the university evaluations or rankings compared to the other variables.

• Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference
• /
• 2021.06a
• /
• pp.423-423
• /
• 2021

국내에서는 '물손실(누수)을 얼마나 잘 관리하고 있는지' 평가하는 물손실관리 수행능 지표를 '유수율(누수율)' 로 판단하고 있다. 하지만, 유수율은 실제 관리자의 의지와 무관한 인자에 영향을 받을 수 있으며, 지역의 여건상 유수율이 높게 나올 수밖에 없는 지역이 있는가 하면 반대로 지역의 여건 상 유수율이 낮게 나올 수밖에 없는 지역이 있다. 따라서 유수율만을 이용하여 물손실관리 수행능력을 평가하는 지표로는 미흡함이 있는 것으로 판단될 뿐만 아니라 IWA에서는 전통적인 백분율을 이용한 지표(손실율, 유수율, 무수율 등)의 문제를 언급하면서 수자원의 효율적인 사용 혹은 상수도사업의 경제성을 나타내는 목적 외에는 사용하지 말아야 한다고 권고하였다. 현재까지의 연구를 보면, 국내 실정에 맞는 다양한 물손실관리 수행능 지표들이 언급되면서 이에 대한 적합성 및 적용성에 대한 많은 연구들이 진행되어 왔다. 기존의 연구들은 지자체 단위로 물손실관리 수행능 지표에 대한 연구를 진행하였다면, 본 연구에서는 소블럭 단위로 수도통계자료를 분석하여 물손실관리를 위한 어떠한 지표를 이용하는 것이 타당한 방법인지 제시하고자 하였다. 비교분석을 하기 위한 지표인 소블럭별 유수율, 실손실율(누수율), 1인당 실손실량, 급수전당 실손실량, 누수평가지표(ILI)를 산정하고, 그 결과에 따라 소블럭별 순위를 결정하였다. 유수율과 급수인구를 고려한 1인당 실손실량과의 비교분석에서 높은 R² (결정계수)값과 소블럭별 순위변동 폭이 적은 것으로 나타났으나, 유수율과 급수전수를 고려한 급수전당 실손실량 및 배수관의 연장과 급수전수, 평균압력을 고려한 누수평가지표와의 비교분석에서는 낮은 R²값과 소블럭별 순위 변동폭이 큰 것으로 나타났다. 앞서 언급한 것처럼, 유수율만을 이용하여 물손실관리 수행능을 설명하기에는 부족할 것으로 판단되며, 유수율 외에도 다양한 지표들을 종합적으로 고려했을 때 가장 바람직한 물손실관리 수행능 평가가 될 것으로 사료된다.