Author
Listed:
- Pongchanun Luangpaiboon
- Chiramet Phinkrathok
- Walailak Atthirawong
- Pasura Aungkulanon
Abstract
The education faculty aims to assess departmental effectiveness by analyzing the relationship between service levels, output variables, and input variables. This objective is coupled with the formulation of faculty development strategies tailored to enhance efficiency while accommodating individual professionals’ unique requirements and aspirations. Furthermore, beyond the annual University Evaluation System, faculty members conduct thorough evaluations to identify discrepancies in departmental reports detailing service levels and input components (factors of production) over a three-year period. Through descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing, reliable data guides the decision-making process regarding the optimal level for data envelopment analysis (DEA). The study employs four simulated scenarios to evaluate the overall performance of five departments using DEA. Findings reveal varying efficacy ratings across departments, with the Department of Health and Physical Education achieving a moderate rating and the Educational Technology Department exhibiting the lowest efficacy. Conversely, departments such as Art Education, Music Education, and Business Education showcase exemplary efficacy levels. Insights gleaned from quantitative analysis and questionnaires contribute significantly to faculty development, enhancing knowledge, competencies, values, attitudes, and future endeavors. Recommendations provided advocate for the widespread implementation of efficacious approaches to bolster faculty efficacy. Moreover, the study underscores the potential to enhance the efficiency and quality of service across faculties through the adoption of best practices and initiatives.
Suggested Citation
Pongchanun Luangpaiboon & Chiramet Phinkrathok & Walailak Atthirawong & Pasura Aungkulanon, 2024.
"Driving Educational Excellence: A Data Envelopment Analysis Study for Decision-Making Enhancement,"
SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, June.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241261008
DOI: 10.1177/21582440241261008
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241261008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.