建立高齡友善大學評鑑指標之研究—以CVIPP模式為例

Abstract

本研究回顧國內外高齡友善政策以及高齡友善大學報告書等，發現以CVIPP模式建立高齡友善大學指標，有助於高等教育機構將高齡友善政策發展於校園中，並能推進高等教育機構實踐社會目的。經文獻歸納初步指標，邀集八位來自高等教育、成人教育與樂齡大學主管之學術工作者，進行三回合德懷術與層級分析法，增減指標項目並釐清構面、層面與項目指標權重，最終得出五項結論：一、高齡友善大學核心理念包括終身學習、代間學習等六大支柱、八面向及十項原則；二、高齡友善大學指標涵蓋組織經營策略等三個構面；三、高齡友善大學指標涵蓋外部評估等五個層面；四、高齡友善大學指標涵蓋五十三個項目；五、高齡友善大學指標權重依序為輸入評估、過程評估與結果評估。根據研究結論，本研究提出六項未來研究建議：一、多元屬性參與者意見能豐實指標內涵；二、考量地域性對高等教育機構推動高齡友善的發展條件；三、依照多元學校型態發展指標細目；四、高齡友善大學指標項目操作性說明定義；五、高齡友善大學財務性指標研擬；六、層級分析法模型建構層級增加。

This study reviewed the age-friendly policies and reports on age-friendly universities. It finds that using the CVIPP model to develop indicators can help higher education institutions incorporate age-friendly practices on campuses. This approach provides the important reference for universities to face the declining enrollment rate due to low birthrates by providing more chances to older people, thereby advancing the social goal of university.Preliminary indicators were developed through literature review, followed by a three-round Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), consisting of 8 academic experts from the fields of higher education, adult continuing education, and university of senior. The experts were asked to refine the indicators, aspects, the structure of dimensions, and item weights. This study reached the following conclusion: (1) The core concepts of an age-friendly university include six pillars such as lifelong learning and intergenerational learning, along with eight dimensions and ten principles (2)The indicators of an age-friendly university cover three major domains, including organizational management strategies (3)The indicators encompass five levels, including context evaluation (4) The indicators consist of a total of 53 items (5)The weights of the age-friendly university indicators are assigned in the order of input, process, and product evaluation.According to the findings, these are six suggestions for future research: (1) Involving diverse stakeholders in higher education can help enrich the content and relevance of the indicators; (2) Future indicators should be context-specific, reflecting differences across regions; (3) Developing sub-indicators according to the diverse types of higher education institutions; (4) Providing clear operational definitions for each indicator of age-friendly universities; (5) Formulating financial indicators to age-friendly universities; (6) Increase the number of levels in the AHP model construction.