Student satisfaction as a managed outcome: relationship with other key performance indicators and expenditure and revenue allocations in Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1998, the Ontario government established performance indicators for its publicly funded colleges and universities. A sub-set of these became the basis for performance funding in 2000. These actions were consistent with those undertaken by a number of governments, on the basis of increasing accountability and improving performance. The implementation of performance funding in Ontario was a significant event and was expected to have an impact on the behaviour of the institutions. This study examined the initial implementation period of the indicators, from 2000 to 2006. Student satisfaction had been identified as a significant outcome in previous research on performance indicators in Ontario. The study examined the relationship between student satisfaction and the other indicators. It also examined the relationship between student satisfaction and revenue sources and expenditure allocations. The study relied on a review of literature on decision making models, performance indicators and their implementation. It built on previous literature on the introduction of performance indicators into Ontario's college system. The study utilized linear multi-regression analysis to determine correlations between the indicators and revenue and expenditure categories. The study found that student satisfaction results of institutions were auto-correlated and becoming increasingly stable over the period of the study. Institutions experienced less change in results year to year and the previous year's result became a better indicator of the subsequent year's. The study also identified correlations between student satisfaction and some revenue and expenditure categories. A significant negative correlation was identified between student satisfaction and expenditures on bursaries and scholarships and a positive correlation was identified between student satisfaction and expenditures on staffing in student services. There was also a positive correlation identified between student satisfaction and ancillary revenues. There was a positive correlation identified between graduate satisfaction and graduate employment. Potential policy implications resulting from the analysis are discussed and suggestions for future research are identified.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».