首页> 外文期刊>Quality in Higher Education >Academics’ perceptions on the purposes of quality assessment
【24h】

Academics’ perceptions on the purposes of quality assessment

机译:学术界对质量评估的看法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The accountability versus improvement debate is an old one. Although being traditionally considered dichotomous purposes of higher education quality assessment, some authors defend the need of balancing both in quality assessment systems. This article goes a step further and contends that not only they should be balanced but also that other purposes can be devised for assessing quality in higher education. Five different purposes are proposed: communication, motivation, control, improvement and innovation, derived both from the higher education and the organisational performance literatures. Then the answers given to a set of questions related to these five intended purposes are analysed. The answers were collected through a questionnaire designed to investigate Portuguese academics’ perceptions on higher education quality assessment. Overall the analysis performed reveals a certain degree of support for all the purposes, albeit higher in the case of the improvement and communication purposes and lower for control and motivation. Since an adequate implementation of quality assessment systems needs the support of academics, this article can inform the design of systems integrating academics’ views on the subject.View full textDownload full textKeywordsquality assessment, purposes, academic staffRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2012.733550
机译:问责制与改进的辩论是一个古老的话题。尽管传统上认为高等教育质量评估是两分目的,但一些作者仍然认为在质量评估系统中必须兼顾两者。本文更进一步,认为不仅应该平衡它们,还可以设计其他目的来评估高等教育的质量。提出了五个不同的目的:交流,动力,控制,改进和创新,这些目的均来自于高等教育和组织绩效文献。然后分析与这五个预期目的相关的一系列问题的答案。答案是通过问卷调查收集的,该问卷旨在调查葡萄牙学者对高等教育质量评估的看法。总体而言,所进行的分析显示了对所有目的的某种程度的支持,尽管在改进和沟通目的上更高,而对于控制和动机则更低。由于质量评估系统的适当实施需要学者的支持,因此本文可以为整合学者对该主题的观点的系统的设计提供参考。查看全文下载全文关键字质量评估,目的,学术人员相关的var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“泰勒&Francis Online”,services_compact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布号:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2012.733550

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号