Using the Fuzzy Synthetic Decision Approach to Assess the Performance of University Teachers in Taiwan

Author : Ying-Feng Kuo, Ling-Show Chen

Source : International Journal of Management

　　　 Vol. 19 No. 4 December 2002 pg. 593-604

Speaker : Shen-Feng Chen ( 陳伸豐 ) ;

Pei-Chiang Li ( 李珮瑲 )

Date : 2004.1.6

Outline

• Introduction

• Research Method

• Research Results and Numerical Example

• Conclusions

• Comments

Introduction

• Conventional performance appraisal• non quantitative index

• uncertainty and simulation

• Fuzzy synthetic decision• transparent

• logical

• reasonable

Research Method

• The questionnaire• 19 variables of teaching

• 18 variables of research

• 20 variables of service

• Data collection

• Fuzzy synthetic decision

Fuzzy synthetic decision(1/2)

v1 v2 v3 … vj Total

u1 x11 x12 x13 … x1j N

u2 x21 x22 x23 … x2j N

: : : : … : N

ui xi1 xi2 xi3 … xij N

rij=xij

NR = (rij)n*m =~

r11 r12 … r1m

r21 r22 … r2m . . . . . . . . . . . .rn1 rn2 … rn*m

Fuzzy synthetic decision(2/2)

R = (rij)i*j ~

Not enough to appraise the teacher yet

D = ~

W。~R = [d1 d2 … dm], dj = Σ (wi*rij), j=1,2,…,m

~ n

i=1

W = (w1,w2,…,wn), in which wi > 0, and Σwi = 1～

Research Results and Numerical Example

According to the first questionnaire　　 Results of factor analysis - Teaching

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

According to the first questionnaire　　 Results of factor analysis - Research

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

According to the first questionnaire　　 Results of factor analysis - Service

Research Results and Numerical Example

Teaching

Assess the P

erformance

Research

Service

Teaching attitude

Teaching approach and skill

Professional knowledge of teaching subjects

Recognition and timely modification of teaching appraisal results

Publishing textbook or developing experimental equipments and manual

Referred papers

Research plan

Communication of professional knowledge

Research award

Technological research fruit

Support to administration inside school

Tutor of student activity

Participated in continuing education and cooperation between institute and enterprisesProfessional serviceAdministration director of pluralism

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

Factors Weight Priority ranking CR

Teaching 0.3835 1

0.0652Research 0.3229 2

Service 0.2936 3

According to the second questionnaire　　Weight and priorities - Overall

Factors Weight Priority ranking CR

Teaching attitude 0.2196 3

0.0374

Teaching approach and skill 0.2296 2

Professional knowledge of teaching subjects 0.2306 1

Recognition and timely modification of

teaching appraisal results0.1855 4

Publishing textbook or developing

experimental equipments and manual0.1347 5

Weight and priorities – Teaching ( )W1

～

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

Factors Weight Priority ranking CR

Referred papers 0.2107 2

0.0210

Research plan 0.2122 1

Communication of professional knowledge 0.1982 3

Research award 0.1821 5

Technological research fruit 0.1968 4

Factors Weight Priority ranking CR

Support to administration inside school 0.2040 3

0.0823

Tutor of student activity 0.2277 1

Participated in continuing education and

cooperation between institute and enterprises0.2141 2

Professional service 0.1855 4

Administration director of pluralism 0.1687 5

Weight and priorities – Research ( )W2

～

Weight and priorities – Service ( )W3

～

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

Factors Excellent Good Normal Poor Very Poor Total

Teaching attitude 4 1 0 0 0 5

Teaching approach and skill 3 2 0 0 0 5

Professional knowledge of teaching subjects 5 0 0 0 0 5

Recognition and timely modification of

teaching appraisal results5 0 0 0 0 5

Publishing textbook or developing

experimental equipments and manual0 3 2 0 0 5

Statistic table of grading times - Teaching

Factors Excellent Good Normal Poor Very Poor Total

Referred papers 1 4 0 0 0 5

Research plan 1 4 0 0 0 5

Communication of professional knowledge 5 0 0 0 0 5

Research award 0 4 0 0 0 5

Technological research fruit 0 2 3 0 0 5

Statistic table of grading times - Research

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

Factors Excellent Good Normal Poor Very Poor Total

Support to administration inside school 1 4 0 0 0 5

Tutor of student activity 5 0 0 0 0 5

Participated in continuing education and

cooperation between institute and enterprises0 1 4 0 0 5

Professional service 4 1 0 0 0 5

Administration director of pluralism 1 4 0 0 0 5

Statistic table of grading times - Service

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

W1 = [ 0.2196 0.2296 0.2306 0.1855 0.1347 ],～

W2 = [ 0.2107 0.2122 0.1982 0.1821 0.1968 ], and～

W3 = [ 0.2040 0.2277 0.2141 0.1855 0.1687 ]～

R1=~

0.8 0.2 0 0 0

0.6 0.4 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 0.6 0.4 0 0

；R2=~

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

0 0.4 0.6 0 0

；R3=~

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 0.2 0.8 0 0

0.8 0.2 0 0 0

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

Σwi = 1

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

D1 = [ 0.2196 0.2296 0.2306 0.1855 0.1347 ] 。

0.8 0.2 0 0 0

0.6 0.4 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 0.6 0.4 0 0　 = [ 0.72954 0.21658 0.05388 0 0 ] ,

D2 = [ 0.2107 0.2122 0.1982 0.1821 0.1968 ] 。～

　 = [ 0.28278 0.59914 0.11808 0 0 ] ,

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

0 0.4 0.6 0 0

D3 = [ 0.2040 0.2277 0.2141 0.1855 0.1687 ] 。～

　 = [ 0.45064 0.37808 0.17128 0 0 ] .

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 0.2 0.8 0 0

0.8 0.2 0 0 0

0.2 0.8 0 0 0

～Di = ～

Ri

～Wi * ～

Di is decision-making sets ～

Research Results and Numerical Example (con.)

0.72954 0.21658 0.05388 0 0

0.28278 0.59914 0.11808 0 0

0.45064 0.37808 0.17128 0 0

The final comprehensive appraisal set of the teacher

D = [ 0.3835 0.3229 0.2936 ] 。～0.72954 0.21658 0.05388 0 0

0.28278 0.59914 0.11808 0 0

0.45064 0.37808 0.17128 0 0

= [ 0.50340 0.38752 0.10908 0 0 ].

*The defuzzified score is 87.8864

Defuzzified to a score : define excellent, good, normal, poor, very poor in appraisal grading as 100 , 80 , 60 , 40 , 20

Conclusions

• Improve teaching quality and guarantee teaching effect

• Affirm the research fruit of the professors and bring along academic research atmosphere

• Encourage the professors to recognize the student tutorship and take an active part in the administrative work of the department and schools and the outspread work

Comments

• 取 α 值大於 0.75 是否真的為高可信度 ?

• 缺乏其它客觀的條件：此方法是否應加入學生的意見，使其評鑑結果更加客觀 ?

Thanks a lot