Your search found 4968 results.

Descriptors:
Part Time Faculty; Outcomes of Education; College Faculty; Higher Education; Intellectual Disciplines; Mentors; Accreditation (Institutions); Pretests Posttests; Adjunct Faculty; Community Colleges; Two Year Colleges; Evaluation

Abstract:
Part-time faculty need to be brought into the student learning outcomes assessment loop not only to help accreditation, but because they, like full-time faculty, can benefit from assessment. When part-time faculty are not participating in assessment, a sizable percentage of courses are being less effectively taught than they could be. In an attempt to increase part-time faculty in discipline-level assessment at Norco College, we experimented with several assessments that required varied levels of effort by part-time faculty. This piece discusses our experience. We found that peer mentoring and communication were better predictors of part-time faculty participation than stipends, adaptable assessment prompts, or administrative pressure. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Private Sector; Diversity (Institutional); Higher Education; Partnerships in Education; Public Sector; Foreign Students; College Students; Public Policy; Colleges; Accreditation (Institutions)

Abstract:
This paper assesses the growing UK private sector in education and questions whether it is, as its supporters suggest, a valuable addition to an already diverse national system. An earlier "Perspectives" paper (Woodfield et al 2011) explored the emerging partnerships between public and private sectors. This follow-up explores the roles that the private sector providers are now playing. To understand this fully it is essential to analyse the range and type of private providers, since their different characteristics and functions mean that only some are relevant to this debate. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Student Financial Aid; Accountability; Federal Aid; Costs; Educational Policy; Debt (Financial); Accreditation (Institutions); Futures (of Society); Performance Based Assessment; Presidents

Abstract:
For 40 years, federal money has sustained higher education while enabling its worst tendencies. That is about to change. The end may have come on February 12, 2013, when President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address. "Skyrocketing costs," the president said, "price way too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt." In a policy document released after the speech, the president proposed the most sweeping change in federal aid since the great debates of the early 1970s. In addition to value-driven accountability measures for colleges, he called for "establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher-education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results." Against a backdrop of a growing number of reports on reforming financial aid, in a handful of words, the president had proposed nothing less than a postinstitutional future of higher education--one in which "colleges," as defined by other colleges, as defined by higher education itself, would no longer have a monopoly over the receipt of public funds. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Credits; Accreditation (Institutions); Prior Learning; Evaluation; Best Practices; Integrity; Higher Education; Professional Development

Abstract:
The heart of prior learning assessment (PLA) is the quality and validity of the academic evaluation process itself. Institutions providing PLA opportunities are faced with issues of accountability from all constituents: students, faculty, state systems, and accrediting agencies. Increasingly, institutions are more and more accepting of different PLA practices and, therefore, the question of program integrity is of concern. Whether an institution is just beginning or has historically engaged PLA practices, a better understanding of standards and best practices is needed in the field. Understanding the impact of PLA programs has had recent attention. For example, CAEL released a study (Klein-Collins, 2010) across 48 institutions, comprising 62,475 students age 25 or older. Twenty-five percent of these students (n = 15,594) had earned PLA credits between the years of 2001-2008. Klein-Collins (2010) reports that PLA students have higher rates of degree completion than non-PLA students regardless of size, level, or type of institution. The data also indicated that even if they did not complete their degrees, PLA students persisted for longer and took more credits than their counterparts. The research strongly indicates that PLA participation increases student success in most measures tracked on persistence. It did not examine different factors pertaining to PLA practices. In this article, the author revisits the 2009 Hoffman, Travers, Evans, and Treadwell study. (Contains 1 table and 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Policy; Higher Education; Foreign Countries; Accreditation (Institutions); Educational Quality; Quality Assurance

Abstract:
Growth and diversity have characterised higher education in OECD countries for fifty years. Chile is no exception and has experienced dramatic increases in the number of students, the range of institutions and the programmes that they offer. But wider participation and diversification are only part of the story. Chilean society remains highly unequal in economic and social terms, and the quality of the academic, technical and professional programmes on offer is uneven. The establishment of a culture of quality in higher education which goes beyond accreditation, and the provision of accurate and reliable information, have become issues of concern not only to institutions, students and employers but to a wider public. This report analyses the performance of the relatively young higher education quality assurance system (SINAC-ES). It provides a set of key principles that the OECD review team believes both reflect international practice and are relevant for Chile. The report makes a set of recommendations about the place of the SINAC ES in Chilean higher education and society; the focus of its work; its structure and leadership; and the functions of licensing; accreditation and information that it carries out. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
School Holding Power; Graduation; College Administration; Undergraduate Students; College Faculty; Teacher Participation; Educational Change; Accreditation (Institutions); Evaluation Criteria; Student Evaluation; College Outcomes Assessment

Abstract:
Any institutional approach to improving graduation rates must include faculty. Faculty, more than anyone else, deliver an institution's "promise," one course at a time. They also evaluate whether or not students have demonstrated sufficient mastery of the subject at hand to make "progress" toward their degrees. This article considers how addressing the essential role of faculty in an institution's retention efforts can be enhanced by leveraging new accreditation requirements regarding retention and graduation outcomes. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Physical Activities; Professional Development; Educational Research; Expertise; Transfer of Training; College Students; Accreditation (Institutions); Interdisciplinary Approach

Abstract:
Three challenges are presented which address problems of transfer of training: running marathon, accreditation of study programmes, professional development in consultancies. It is discussed in-how-far and why different approaches to transfer of training stress commonalities or differences between these challenges. The results are used to analyse the overall goal of this special issue, namely improving research on transfer of training through the development of interdisciplinary, integrative research conceptualisations. Two areas of research are discussed, in which such integration already has been implemented: research on expertise and research on situated learning. These areas of research do not explicitly focus on transfer of training, but it is shown how the contributions to this special issue could be related to them. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Accountability; Teacher Education; Global Education; Foreign Countries; Educational Change; Higher Education; Leadership; Policy Analysis; Evaluation; Neoliberalism; Educational Policy; Standardized Tests; Accreditation (Institutions); Preservice Teacher Education; Outcomes of Education

Abstract:
This paper examines the emergence of new accountabilities in teaching and teacher education in Ireland in the 15 years period 1997-2012. Framing accountability in terms of the three main approaches to it globally in education systems, that is, compliance with regulations, adherence to professional norms and attainment of results/outcomes, we identify significant changes, particularly, in compliance- and results-driven accountability. A "rising tide" of accountability, due to the interrelated influences of the European higher education space, education legislation and professional self-regulation policies (i.e. Teaching Council), is evident since the late 1990s. This was punctuated by a "perfect storm" in 2010 comprising "bad news" from PISA 2009, the economic bailout and strategic leadership at a system level. The cumulative impact of the "rising tide" and "perfect storm" is evident in how they reframed both "to whom" and "for what" accountability in teacher education relates. Significantly, the new accountabilities in teaching and teacher education reflect a move towards the dominant global education reform movement (Sahlberg 2007) with its emphasis on standardisation, narrow focus on literacy and numeracy and higher stakes accountability. (Contains 5 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Productivity; Academic Rank (Professional); College Faculty; Program Effectiveness; Journal Articles; School Psychology; Gender Differences; Tenure; Accreditation (Institutions); Faculty Publishing; Citations (References); Correlation; Databases

Abstract:
The primary objective of this study was to conduct a normative assessment of the research productivity and scholarly impact of tenured and tenure-track faculty in school psychology programs accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA). Using the PsycINFO database, productivity and impact were examined for the field as a whole and by faculty rank and gender between 2005 and 2009. Results of our study reflected considerable variability in scholarly impact and productivity. For example, on average, school psychology faculty published slightly more than one refereed journal article per year, with productivity rates ranging from zero to eight articles per year. Similar variability in results was observed for scholarly impact. Results of this study also revealed no significant differences in productivity and impact by scholarly rank. Significant differences were observed for gender, however, with higher productivity and impact for men than women. A secondary objective of this study was to rank the most productive and impactful faculty by total authorship credit, number of publications, and number of citations, and to examine the relationships among these different rankings. Implications and limitations are discussed. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Quality Assurance; Institutional Evaluation; Vocational Education; Foreign Countries; Change Agents; Educational Change; Program Evaluation; Accreditation (Institutions); Outcomes of Education; Total Quality Management; Influences; Evaluation Methods; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation

Abstract:
Post-secondary education institutions in Taiwan are divided into two tracks, general higher education (HE) and technological and vocational education (TVE). The evaluation of all universities/colleges is mandated by the University Act. Higher education institutions receive mandated institutional evaluation every six years and program evaluation every five years. The purpose of this paper is to briefly introduce the status of higher education institutional and program evaluations in Taiwan as well as the emerging roles of the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). Both institutional and program evaluations are accreditation-oriented, adopting the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle with an emphasis on institutional and program self-positioning, student learning outcome, and mechanism for continuous improvement. As the third-party planner and implementer of higher education institutional and program evaluations, HEEACT has conducted internal and external assessments as well as entrusted third-party meta-evaluation to assure its quality of work. Faced with the emerging challenges, such as the Ministry of Education's new policy on requiring some universities/colleges to implement self-conducted external evaluation in replacement of the third-party program evaluation, HEEACT has to alter its roles and becomes a Critical Friend of higher education institutions and programs, a Change Agent of higher education institutional and program evaluation, and an Effective Facilitator of the international exchanges and cooperation on quality assurance and mutual recognitions of national qualifications. (Contains 3 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (88K)