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