Achieving government, community and institutional goals through the measurement of performance: accountability and performance indicators in Ontario colleges and universities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1998, the Ontario government established performance indicators for its publicly funded colleges and universities to both assess performance and distribute part of the public funds allocated to higher education. This initiative was consistent with the actions of governments throughout the world and has significance for both the systems of higher education and the individual institutions wherever it is in place. This study examined several issues including government motivation for measuring the performance of postsecondary institutions; a critical analysis of the Ontario accountability framework against both public policy goals for postsecondary education and established standards and criteria for performance measurement systems; perceptions of stakeholders regarding public goals and the efficacy of the current accountability system; and recommendations for changes to the Ontario performance indicator system based on research results. The study found that the perceptions of stakeholders regarding government goals for postsecondary education were reasonably consistent with those found in public documents. However, the lack of a clear statement of government goals, together with some misalignment of perceived goals and those the current performance indicators appear to be measuring, caused confusion and could also result in inappropriate steering effects on the behaviour of colleges and universities. The study also found that the current Ontario accountability framework was only moderately consistent with the standards and criteria for postsecondary performance indicators established in the literature. Other significant findings of the study include differences in perceived goals for colleges and universities but similar indicators to measure performance, the lack of provision for mission-related institutional goals contrary to recommendations in the literature, and that transferability from college to university, a clearly stated goal of the government, is neither measured nor rewarded by performance funding. The study relied on a review of government documents and related literature, and the results of a survey of stakeholders regarding government goals for postsecondary education, the relevance and reliability of the current performance indicators for measuring performance and influencing funding, and identification of other indicators relevant to assess the performance of Ontario colleges and universities. Recommendations for changes to the system and suggestions for future research are included.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».