我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系研究
|
摘要
21世纪第一个十年中,随着我国社会、经济、政治等领域的改革不断深入,处于社会转型期的关键时刻,中国的可持续高速发展要靠“中国创造”,而不是“中国制造”,而要实现“中国创造”的关键是巨量的具有创造力的人才。以培养创新性人才为使命的研究型大学的人才培养绩效因此备受关注,并成为创新型国家建设中一个十分重要的问题。对社会,大学的人才培养质量关系着国家的经济发展、科技创新、竞争优势和综合国力的世界水平;对家庭,大学的人才培养质量关系着学生发展的未来选择、未来的生存空间和人生价值;对学校,大学的人才培养质量关系着其社会地位,进而影响着学校发展中一切要素的良性运行。因此,各个国家都以不同的方式开展大学人才培养质量的综合评价,从而推动大学教育质量的不断提升。
研究型大学本科人才培养绩效是大学教育质量中的一个重要命题,本科人才培养一方面是创新型人才培养的基础阶段,另一方面又是培养学生追求真理、严谨求实、追求理想、培养学术兴趣的黄金阶段。世界上一些国家都开始把建设研究型大学本科人才培养提上了政府的工作日程,将其作为其基本功能而有别于一般纯粹的研究机构,并以强大的科学研究为后盾,教学方式是基于项目的研究型教学而有别于普通高等学校,本研究在绩效评估理论的指导下,基于现有研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系的研究成果,围绕研究型大学特征及其本科生培养的目标,设计和构建我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。具体研究内容如下:
第一,分析已有人才培养评价指标体系的优缺点。本科人才培养不像企业具有利润这样明确而且可量化、可操作化的评价指标,另一方面我国研究型大学把自身的真正价值限定在科研方面,高深的研究和本科教育存在于两个完全不同的层面上,前者是愉悦、成名和奖励之源,而后者却只是用来维持大学的存在,使得统一、严密的研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系难以形成。因此,本研究首先需要通过文献研究法罗列出近些年来国内外人才培养评价指标体系,同时还需要确定对已有人才培养评价指标进行取舍的标准和依据。本研究的取舍标准和依据主要有两个方面:一是本科人才培养绩效评价的结构体系,二是研究型大学的职能特点及本科人才培养的目标,依据这两个方面制定出明确的指标选取标准。基于本研究的任务,围绕研究型大学特征及其本科生培养的目标,设计和构建我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。
第二,将初步提出的我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系制定成调查问卷,在上海交通大学进行抽样调查,运用SPSS软件通过对所收集的数据进行项目分析、信度分析和分辨力分析等量表分析,对初步构建的我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标进行评价和修正,得到较为完善的我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。项目分析是评估数据整体的质量,数据总体质量高,为进一步进行信度分析和分辨力分析打下基础;信度分析解决的是我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标的可靠性和一致性问题,如果一个量表的信度越高,代表量表越稳定,越能够一致地反映上一级指标。根据统计学者的研究理论,如果信度Cronbachα系数在0.75以上,表示量表有较高的信度,如果研究者编制的量表的信度Cronbachα系数小于0.60表示没有较高的信度,应该重新修订量表中项目指标。分辨力分析将指标总分按从高到低的顺序排列,得分前25%者为高分组,得分后25%者为低分组,并计算出这两部分人在每一条陈述上分辨力系数,分辨力系数越高,则表示该条目能鉴别不同被试的反应程度明显,予以保留,而分辨力系数出现负数值,则表示该条目不能鉴别不同被试的反应程度,应予剔除。
第三、经过运用SPSS软件通过对所收集的数据进行项目分析、信度分析和分辨力分析等量表分析之后,本研究继续使用SPSS软件研究性别、年龄、学历、学科、职业、职称等不同因素对我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系的不同的评价,根据不同因素对于同一指标的显著性差异来分析,根据统计学的研究理论,如果显著性系数小于0.05,则表示有显著性差异,本研究依此研究具有显著性差异的评价,从而获取信息,并尝试尽可能客观地解释原因,供有关部门参考而凸显研究的现实意义。
本研究所致力的研究结果一方面是在绩效评估的研究理论指导下,基于现有研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系的研究成果,围绕研究型大学特征及其本科生培养的目标,设计和构建我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。另一方面,进行指标体系的初步应用,并对选取何种方法应用该指标体系进行实践提出展望,提出运用模糊评价法结合《我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系》对我国研究型大学进行本科人才培养评价。并通过对该指标体系的运用,使研究型大学本科人才培养评价标准进一步细化和可操作化,同时也提供有关实践操作中所运用工具的建议。
The first decade of the 21st century has seen crucial social transformation in China. With further reforms in social, economic and political sphere, it is China’s innovation, which depends on a number of creative talents rather than China’s production that can guarantee the sustainable fast-growing of the whole society. Thus, lots of states focus on the education of creative talents. And special attention is paid on the performance of training talents by research universities. On the Macroscopic level, high educational quality is closely related to the growth of national economy, scientific innovation, competitive strength as well as comprehensive national power; on the mesosphere level, it is of essential significance on the reputation of the university and its daily operation; on the microsphere level, students’future development also depends largely on the university educational quality, including their future choice and life value. In a word, various nations have carried out comprehensive appraisal of universities so as to improve the quality of high education.
One of the major topics of university educational quality lies in the performance of undergraduate education in research universities. Undergraduate education, on the one hand, plays a fundamental role in the education of creative talents; on the other hand, helps shape students’willing of pursuing truth, down-to-earth attitude and academic interest during the gold stage of education. Some nations have put undergraduate training of research universities which is backed up by scientific research, onto government’s work agenda. Under the direction of the Performance Evaluation Theory, this paper tries designing the system of undergraduate education performance index of research universities, based on the existing research results.
First, this paper analyzes the strength and weakness of existing research results. From one perspective, there is less clarified and operational evaluation index of undergraduate education comparing to companies; from another perspective, research universities in China emphasize scientific research in order to realize its own value. As to its functions, it is much more complex than undergraduate education: the former aims at winning outside rewards and establishing reputation, and the latter maintain the regular performance of universities. This phenomenon adds difficulties to the construction of the system of undergraduate education performance index in research universities.
So this paper summarizes the recent studies of talent training at home and abroad through literature research method and set its own standard based on the following aspects, including the appraisal structure, undergraduate training goal as well as function characteristics of research universities. Then it gives a systematic analysis of the system of undergraduate education performance index of research universities in China.
Furthermore, under the instruction of the preliminary evaluation index system, it conducts a sample survey among the university students in Shanghai Jiao Tong University. After the investigation, it uses SPSS software to collect the data for project analysis and reliability analysis, and improves the evaluation index system to build the better version. Among these, item analysis is to evaluate the overall quality of data which plays a fundamental role in reliability analysis and consistency analysis. The reliability analysis method aims to measure the reliability and validity of the image of the government. The higher reliability, the more stability it has. According to statistics by research scholars, if the Cronbach’sαreliability coefficient is over 0.75, its scale has high reliability. While if the researchers compiled the reliability by Cronbach’sαcoefficient of less than 0.60, it means scale of project targets has no high reliability and it should be revised. In terms of this study, in descending order of score, who scored 25% higher before the group was clarified as high score group and who scored 25% lower after the group was clarified as low score group. This paper calculates the resolution coefficient of these two groups, and deletes the negative ones which cannot identify different reactions of people tested.
Lastly, as for the data collected, after using SPSS to complete project analysis, reliability analysis, resolution analysis and relevant scale analysis, this research continues using SPSS software to analyze the different influences from all kinds of elements, such as gender, age, educational background, subject, occupation and so on, to the performance evaluation index system of undergraduate education in research-oriented universities in China so that the significant differences from different elements to the same index is discovered. According to statistical theories, it indicates significant difference that the coefficient is less than 0.05. Thus, the research does researching on the evaluation of the significant difference to gain information and try to explain the reasons objectively, aiming at provide useful references to government.
On one side, under the direct of performance evaluation theories, according to the features and goals of research-oriented universities, the findings of this research refer to designing and conducting the performance evaluation index system of undergraduate education in research-oriented universities. On the other side, it does elementary researching on practical application and proposes methods to undertake the index system, putting forward evaluations on the undergraduate education in China’s research-oriented universities by combining the“undergraduate education performance index system of china’s research-oriented universities”with fuzzy evaluation method. So this article will not only refine the standards of the performance evaluation index system of undergraduate education in China’s research-oriented universities and also provide suggestions on methods using in practical operations.
研究型大学本科人才培养绩效是大学教育质量中的一个重要命题,本科人才培养一方面是创新型人才培养的基础阶段,另一方面又是培养学生追求真理、严谨求实、追求理想、培养学术兴趣的黄金阶段。世界上一些国家都开始把建设研究型大学本科人才培养提上了政府的工作日程,将其作为其基本功能而有别于一般纯粹的研究机构,并以强大的科学研究为后盾,教学方式是基于项目的研究型教学而有别于普通高等学校,本研究在绩效评估理论的指导下,基于现有研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系的研究成果,围绕研究型大学特征及其本科生培养的目标,设计和构建我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。具体研究内容如下:
第一,分析已有人才培养评价指标体系的优缺点。本科人才培养不像企业具有利润这样明确而且可量化、可操作化的评价指标,另一方面我国研究型大学把自身的真正价值限定在科研方面,高深的研究和本科教育存在于两个完全不同的层面上,前者是愉悦、成名和奖励之源,而后者却只是用来维持大学的存在,使得统一、严密的研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系难以形成。因此,本研究首先需要通过文献研究法罗列出近些年来国内外人才培养评价指标体系,同时还需要确定对已有人才培养评价指标进行取舍的标准和依据。本研究的取舍标准和依据主要有两个方面:一是本科人才培养绩效评价的结构体系,二是研究型大学的职能特点及本科人才培养的目标,依据这两个方面制定出明确的指标选取标准。基于本研究的任务,围绕研究型大学特征及其本科生培养的目标,设计和构建我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。
第二,将初步提出的我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系制定成调查问卷,在上海交通大学进行抽样调查,运用SPSS软件通过对所收集的数据进行项目分析、信度分析和分辨力分析等量表分析,对初步构建的我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标进行评价和修正,得到较为完善的我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。项目分析是评估数据整体的质量,数据总体质量高,为进一步进行信度分析和分辨力分析打下基础;信度分析解决的是我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标的可靠性和一致性问题,如果一个量表的信度越高,代表量表越稳定,越能够一致地反映上一级指标。根据统计学者的研究理论,如果信度Cronbachα系数在0.75以上,表示量表有较高的信度,如果研究者编制的量表的信度Cronbachα系数小于0.60表示没有较高的信度,应该重新修订量表中项目指标。分辨力分析将指标总分按从高到低的顺序排列,得分前25%者为高分组,得分后25%者为低分组,并计算出这两部分人在每一条陈述上分辨力系数,分辨力系数越高,则表示该条目能鉴别不同被试的反应程度明显,予以保留,而分辨力系数出现负数值,则表示该条目不能鉴别不同被试的反应程度,应予剔除。
第三、经过运用SPSS软件通过对所收集的数据进行项目分析、信度分析和分辨力分析等量表分析之后,本研究继续使用SPSS软件研究性别、年龄、学历、学科、职业、职称等不同因素对我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系的不同的评价,根据不同因素对于同一指标的显著性差异来分析,根据统计学的研究理论,如果显著性系数小于0.05,则表示有显著性差异,本研究依此研究具有显著性差异的评价,从而获取信息,并尝试尽可能客观地解释原因,供有关部门参考而凸显研究的现实意义。
本研究所致力的研究结果一方面是在绩效评估的研究理论指导下,基于现有研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系的研究成果,围绕研究型大学特征及其本科生培养的目标,设计和构建我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系。另一方面,进行指标体系的初步应用,并对选取何种方法应用该指标体系进行实践提出展望,提出运用模糊评价法结合《我国研究型大学本科人才培养绩效指标体系》对我国研究型大学进行本科人才培养评价。并通过对该指标体系的运用,使研究型大学本科人才培养评价标准进一步细化和可操作化,同时也提供有关实践操作中所运用工具的建议。
The first decade of the 21st century has seen crucial social transformation in China. With further reforms in social, economic and political sphere, it is China’s innovation, which depends on a number of creative talents rather than China’s production that can guarantee the sustainable fast-growing of the whole society. Thus, lots of states focus on the education of creative talents. And special attention is paid on the performance of training talents by research universities. On the Macroscopic level, high educational quality is closely related to the growth of national economy, scientific innovation, competitive strength as well as comprehensive national power; on the mesosphere level, it is of essential significance on the reputation of the university and its daily operation; on the microsphere level, students’future development also depends largely on the university educational quality, including their future choice and life value. In a word, various nations have carried out comprehensive appraisal of universities so as to improve the quality of high education.
One of the major topics of university educational quality lies in the performance of undergraduate education in research universities. Undergraduate education, on the one hand, plays a fundamental role in the education of creative talents; on the other hand, helps shape students’willing of pursuing truth, down-to-earth attitude and academic interest during the gold stage of education. Some nations have put undergraduate training of research universities which is backed up by scientific research, onto government’s work agenda. Under the direction of the Performance Evaluation Theory, this paper tries designing the system of undergraduate education performance index of research universities, based on the existing research results.
First, this paper analyzes the strength and weakness of existing research results. From one perspective, there is less clarified and operational evaluation index of undergraduate education comparing to companies; from another perspective, research universities in China emphasize scientific research in order to realize its own value. As to its functions, it is much more complex than undergraduate education: the former aims at winning outside rewards and establishing reputation, and the latter maintain the regular performance of universities. This phenomenon adds difficulties to the construction of the system of undergraduate education performance index in research universities.
So this paper summarizes the recent studies of talent training at home and abroad through literature research method and set its own standard based on the following aspects, including the appraisal structure, undergraduate training goal as well as function characteristics of research universities. Then it gives a systematic analysis of the system of undergraduate education performance index of research universities in China.
Furthermore, under the instruction of the preliminary evaluation index system, it conducts a sample survey among the university students in Shanghai Jiao Tong University. After the investigation, it uses SPSS software to collect the data for project analysis and reliability analysis, and improves the evaluation index system to build the better version. Among these, item analysis is to evaluate the overall quality of data which plays a fundamental role in reliability analysis and consistency analysis. The reliability analysis method aims to measure the reliability and validity of the image of the government. The higher reliability, the more stability it has. According to statistics by research scholars, if the Cronbach’sαreliability coefficient is over 0.75, its scale has high reliability. While if the researchers compiled the reliability by Cronbach’sαcoefficient of less than 0.60, it means scale of project targets has no high reliability and it should be revised. In terms of this study, in descending order of score, who scored 25% higher before the group was clarified as high score group and who scored 25% lower after the group was clarified as low score group. This paper calculates the resolution coefficient of these two groups, and deletes the negative ones which cannot identify different reactions of people tested.
Lastly, as for the data collected, after using SPSS to complete project analysis, reliability analysis, resolution analysis and relevant scale analysis, this research continues using SPSS software to analyze the different influences from all kinds of elements, such as gender, age, educational background, subject, occupation and so on, to the performance evaluation index system of undergraduate education in research-oriented universities in China so that the significant differences from different elements to the same index is discovered. According to statistical theories, it indicates significant difference that the coefficient is less than 0.05. Thus, the research does researching on the evaluation of the significant difference to gain information and try to explain the reasons objectively, aiming at provide useful references to government.
On one side, under the direct of performance evaluation theories, according to the features and goals of research-oriented universities, the findings of this research refer to designing and conducting the performance evaluation index system of undergraduate education in research-oriented universities. On the other side, it does elementary researching on practical application and proposes methods to undertake the index system, putting forward evaluations on the undergraduate education in China’s research-oriented universities by combining the“undergraduate education performance index system of china’s research-oriented universities”with fuzzy evaluation method. So this article will not only refine the standards of the performance evaluation index system of undergraduate education in China’s research-oriented universities and also provide suggestions on methods using in practical operations.
引文
1杨福家.大学的使命与文化内涵[J].学习时报,2008(818).
2查建中.研究型大学必须改革本科教育以培养大批创新人才——兼谈“创新国家”的人力资源建设[J].高等工程教育研究,2010,(3).
3庆伊富长等.大学评价[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1990.
4 Cave,M.and Hanney S.,"Performance Indicators",In" The Encyclopedia of Higher Education"[R],Edited by Burton R.Clark and Guy R.Neave (eds.) Pergamon Press Ltd.,1992.P1411.
5代蕊华.西方高校的绩效指标及其评价[J].外国教育资料,1999,(6).
6 Cave,Martin, Hanny,Stephen and Kogan,Mauric,"The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice"[R], Jessica Kingsleg Publishers,Ltd, 988.P17,20,106,107,118-139.
7 Taylor, Barbara E.,Megerson, JoelW.and Massy,William,"Strategic Indicators for Higher Education:Improving Performance" [R],Peterson's Guides,1993.
8风笑天.现代调查方法[M].湖北:华中科技大学出版社,2009.6.
9现代汉语词典,384页,北京,商务印书馆,1922.
10现代汉语词典,136页,北京,商务印书馆,1922.
11现代汉语词典,137页,北京,商务印书馆,1922.
12 Lester.Tom(2001) Number crunchers search for the right yardstick: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT : Measuring performance is increasingly seen as a way to improve services . But the assessment criteria used can be contentious, London: financial Times,Nov.30.
13卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
14许迈进.美国研究型大学研究[S].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2005.
15王战军.学位与研究生教育评估技术与实践[S].北京:高等教育出版社,2000.
16张程花.研究型大学的评价探讨[J].黑龙江教育(高教研究与评估),2006,10:79-81.
17李华,蒋华林,杨忠.研究型大学本科教学特点及比较研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(2).
18 The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities[J/OL], http://www. sunysb. edu/pres/ 0210066- Boyer.
19虞丽娟.美国研究型大学人才培养体系的改革及启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(2).
20赵沁平.精英教育:高水平研究型大学的人才培养理念[J].中国高等教育,2004,(8).
21虞丽娟.美国研究型大学人才培养体系的改革及启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(2).
22卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
26刘念才,程莹,刘莉.世界大学学术排名的现状与未来[J].清华大学教育研究,2005,(3).
27武书连,吕嘉,郭石林. 2010中国大学评价[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2010,(4).
28肖鸣政.高校排名问题及其管理研究[J].人大复印资料,2004,(10).
29王战军,翟亚军.中国研究型大学评价指标体系的研究[J].清华大学教育研究.2008.29(5).
31卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
32代蕊华.西方高校的绩效指标及其评价[J].外国教育资料,1999,(6).
33 1993年中国教育改革和发展纲要[J/OL].http://www.edu.cn/da_shi_ji_491/20090915/t20090915 _ 407209.shtml.
34查建中.研究型大学必须改革本科教育以培养大批创新人才——兼谈“创新国家”的人力资源建设[J].高等工程教育研究,2010,(3).
35引自陶行知一首题为《三代》的诗歌.
36雅克·德洛尔.教育——财富蕴藏其中[R].《教育——财富蕴藏其中》是联合国教科文组织发布的极其重要的教育文献。这个文献是由雅克·德洛尔任主席的国际21世纪教育委员会向联合国教科文组织提交的报告.
37上海交通大学985三期规划的PPT .
39陈永国.公共管理定量分析方法[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2006.
40吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务[M].北京:中国铁道出版社,2003.
41风笑天现代调查方法[M].湖北:华中科技大学出版社,2009.6.
[1]庆伊富长等.大学评价[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1990.
[2] Cave,M.and Hanney S.,"Performance Indicators",In" The Encyclopedia of Higher Education" [R], Edited by Burton R.Clark and Guy R.Neave (eds.) Pergamon Press Ltd.,1992.
[3]代蕊华.西方高校的绩效指标及其评价[J].外国教育资料,1999,(6).
[4] Cave,Martin, Hanny,Stephen and Kogan,Mauric,"The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice" [R]. Jessica Kingsleg Publishers Ltd,1988:17,20,106-107.
[5] Taylor,Barbara E.,Megerson,JoelW.and Massy,William.,"Strategic Indicators for Higher Education:Improving Performance" [R]. Peterson's Guides,1993.
[6]查建中.研究型大学必须改革本科教育以培养大批创新人才——兼谈“创新国家”的人力资源建设[J].高等工程教育研究,2010,(3).
[7]现代汉语词典,北京:商务印书馆,1922.
[8] Lester.Tom(2001) Number crunchers search for the right yardstick: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT : Measuring performance is increasingly seen as a way to improve services . But the assessment criteria used can be contentious [R], London: financial Times,Nov.30.
[9]卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
[10]许迈进.美国研究型大学研究[S].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2005.
[11]王战军.学位与研究生教育评估技术与实践[S].北京:高等教育出版社,2000.
[12]张程花.研究型大学的评价探讨[J].黑龙江教育(高教研究与评估),2006,(10):79-81.
[13]李华,蒋华林,杨忠.研究型大学本科教学特点及比较研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(2).
[14] The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities [J/OL]. http://www. sunysb. edu/pres/ 0210066-Boyer.
[15]虞丽娟.美国研究型大学人才培养体系的改革及启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(2).
[16]赵沁平.精英教育:高水平研究型大学的人才培养理念[J].中国高等教育,2004,(8).
[17] U.S.News & World Report. Exclusive Rankings America’s BestColleges[R]. 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991,1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,2000, 2001年各年度资料.
[18]肖鸣政.高校排名问题及其管理研究[J].人大复印资料,2004,(10).
[19]刘念才,程莹,刘莉.世界大学学术排名的现状与未来[J].清华大学教育研究,2005,(3).
[20]武书连,吕嘉,郭石林. 2010中国大学评价[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2010,(4).
[21]王战军、翟亚军.中国研究型大学评价指标体系的研究[J].清华大学教育研究,2008,(5):28.
[22]普通高等学校本科教学工作水平评估指标体系[J/OL].http://www.Pgz x.edu.cn/main/webShowdoc.channel=yxpg_pgwd&docID=2006/06/06/1149553143321.xml.
[23] 1993年中国教育改革和发展纲要[J/OL].http://www.edu.cn/da_shi_ji _491/20090915/t20090915_407209.shtml.
[24]引自陶行知一首题为《三代》的诗歌.
[25]雅克·德洛尔.教育——财富蕴藏其中[J].联合国教科文组织,1993.
[26]上海交通大学在985三期规划PPT.
[27]陈永国.公共管理定量分析方法[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2006.
[28]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务[M].北京:中国铁道出版社,2003.
[29]风笑天.现代调查方法[M].湖北:华中科技大学出版社,2009.6.
[30]韩美贵.研究型大学教师绩效模糊综合评价探究[J].数学的实践与认识,2005,(12).
[31]徐秀英等.研究型大学教师绩效评价指标体系与模糊综合评价的探讨[J].中国农业教育,2005(4):32-34.
[32]张卓.研究型大学的基本特征和评价体系[J].南京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(2).
[33]刘宝存.美国大学的创新人才培养与本科生科研[J].外国教育研究,2005,(12).
[34]黄春林.基于创新人才培养的高校教学管理体制创新研究[D].湖南大学,2005.
[35]刘凡丰.美国研究型大学本科教育改革透视[J].高等教育研究,2003,(1).
2查建中.研究型大学必须改革本科教育以培养大批创新人才——兼谈“创新国家”的人力资源建设[J].高等工程教育研究,2010,(3).
3庆伊富长等.大学评价[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1990.
4 Cave,M.and Hanney S.,"Performance Indicators",In" The Encyclopedia of Higher Education"[R],Edited by Burton R.Clark and Guy R.Neave (eds.) Pergamon Press Ltd.,1992.P1411.
5代蕊华.西方高校的绩效指标及其评价[J].外国教育资料,1999,(6).
6 Cave,Martin, Hanny,Stephen and Kogan,Mauric,"The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice"[R], Jessica Kingsleg Publishers,Ltd, 988.P17,20,106,107,118-139.
7 Taylor, Barbara E.,Megerson, JoelW.and Massy,William,"Strategic Indicators for Higher Education:Improving Performance" [R],Peterson's Guides,1993.
8风笑天.现代调查方法[M].湖北:华中科技大学出版社,2009.6.
9现代汉语词典,384页,北京,商务印书馆,1922.
10现代汉语词典,136页,北京,商务印书馆,1922.
11现代汉语词典,137页,北京,商务印书馆,1922.
12 Lester.Tom(2001) Number crunchers search for the right yardstick: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT : Measuring performance is increasingly seen as a way to improve services . But the assessment criteria used can be contentious, London: financial Times,Nov.30.
13卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
14许迈进.美国研究型大学研究[S].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2005.
15王战军.学位与研究生教育评估技术与实践[S].北京:高等教育出版社,2000.
16张程花.研究型大学的评价探讨[J].黑龙江教育(高教研究与评估),2006,10:79-81.
17李华,蒋华林,杨忠.研究型大学本科教学特点及比较研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(2).
18 The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities[J/OL], http://www. sunysb. edu/pres/ 0210066- Boyer.
19虞丽娟.美国研究型大学人才培养体系的改革及启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(2).
20赵沁平.精英教育:高水平研究型大学的人才培养理念[J].中国高等教育,2004,(8).
21虞丽娟.美国研究型大学人才培养体系的改革及启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(2).
22卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
26刘念才,程莹,刘莉.世界大学学术排名的现状与未来[J].清华大学教育研究,2005,(3).
27武书连,吕嘉,郭石林. 2010中国大学评价[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2010,(4).
28肖鸣政.高校排名问题及其管理研究[J].人大复印资料,2004,(10).
29王战军,翟亚军.中国研究型大学评价指标体系的研究[J].清华大学教育研究.2008.29(5).
31卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
32代蕊华.西方高校的绩效指标及其评价[J].外国教育资料,1999,(6).
33 1993年中国教育改革和发展纲要[J/OL].http://www.edu.cn/da_shi_ji_491/20090915/t20090915 _ 407209.shtml.
34查建中.研究型大学必须改革本科教育以培养大批创新人才——兼谈“创新国家”的人力资源建设[J].高等工程教育研究,2010,(3).
35引自陶行知一首题为《三代》的诗歌.
36雅克·德洛尔.教育——财富蕴藏其中[R].《教育——财富蕴藏其中》是联合国教科文组织发布的极其重要的教育文献。这个文献是由雅克·德洛尔任主席的国际21世纪教育委员会向联合国教科文组织提交的报告.
37上海交通大学985三期规划的PPT .
39陈永国.公共管理定量分析方法[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2006.
40吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务[M].北京:中国铁道出版社,2003.
41风笑天现代调查方法[M].湖北:华中科技大学出版社,2009.6.
[1]庆伊富长等.大学评价[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1990.
[2] Cave,M.and Hanney S.,"Performance Indicators",In" The Encyclopedia of Higher Education" [R], Edited by Burton R.Clark and Guy R.Neave (eds.) Pergamon Press Ltd.,1992.
[3]代蕊华.西方高校的绩效指标及其评价[J].外国教育资料,1999,(6).
[4] Cave,Martin, Hanny,Stephen and Kogan,Mauric,"The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice" [R]. Jessica Kingsleg Publishers Ltd,1988:17,20,106-107.
[5] Taylor,Barbara E.,Megerson,JoelW.and Massy,William.,"Strategic Indicators for Higher Education:Improving Performance" [R]. Peterson's Guides,1993.
[6]查建中.研究型大学必须改革本科教育以培养大批创新人才——兼谈“创新国家”的人力资源建设[J].高等工程教育研究,2010,(3).
[7]现代汉语词典,北京:商务印书馆,1922.
[8] Lester.Tom(2001) Number crunchers search for the right yardstick: PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT : Measuring performance is increasingly seen as a way to improve services . But the assessment criteria used can be contentious [R], London: financial Times,Nov.30.
[9]卓越.公共部门绩效评估[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.6.
[10]许迈进.美国研究型大学研究[S].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2005.
[11]王战军.学位与研究生教育评估技术与实践[S].北京:高等教育出版社,2000.
[12]张程花.研究型大学的评价探讨[J].黑龙江教育(高教研究与评估),2006,(10):79-81.
[13]李华,蒋华林,杨忠.研究型大学本科教学特点及比较研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(2).
[14] The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities [J/OL]. http://www. sunysb. edu/pres/ 0210066-Boyer.
[15]虞丽娟.美国研究型大学人才培养体系的改革及启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2005,(2).
[16]赵沁平.精英教育:高水平研究型大学的人才培养理念[J].中国高等教育,2004,(8).
[17] U.S.News & World Report. Exclusive Rankings America’s BestColleges[R]. 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991,1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,2000, 2001年各年度资料.
[18]肖鸣政.高校排名问题及其管理研究[J].人大复印资料,2004,(10).
[19]刘念才,程莹,刘莉.世界大学学术排名的现状与未来[J].清华大学教育研究,2005,(3).
[20]武书连,吕嘉,郭石林. 2010中国大学评价[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2010,(4).
[21]王战军、翟亚军.中国研究型大学评价指标体系的研究[J].清华大学教育研究,2008,(5):28.
[22]普通高等学校本科教学工作水平评估指标体系[J/OL].http://www.Pgz x.edu.cn/main/webShowdoc.channel=yxpg_pgwd&docID=2006/06/06/1149553143321.xml.
[23] 1993年中国教育改革和发展纲要[J/OL].http://www.edu.cn/da_shi_ji _491/20090915/t20090915_407209.shtml.
[24]引自陶行知一首题为《三代》的诗歌.
[25]雅克·德洛尔.教育——财富蕴藏其中[J].联合国教科文组织,1993.
[26]上海交通大学在985三期规划PPT.
[27]陈永国.公共管理定量分析方法[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2006.
[28]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务[M].北京:中国铁道出版社,2003.
[29]风笑天.现代调查方法[M].湖北:华中科技大学出版社,2009.6.
[30]韩美贵.研究型大学教师绩效模糊综合评价探究[J].数学的实践与认识,2005,(12).
[31]徐秀英等.研究型大学教师绩效评价指标体系与模糊综合评价的探讨[J].中国农业教育,2005(4):32-34.
[32]张卓.研究型大学的基本特征和评价体系[J].南京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(2).
[33]刘宝存.美国大学的创新人才培养与本科生科研[J].外国教育研究,2005,(12).
[34]黄春林.基于创新人才培养的高校教学管理体制创新研究[D].湖南大学,2005.
[35]刘凡丰.美国研究型大学本科教育改革透视[J].高等教育研究,2003,(1).