排序方式： 共有6条查询结果，搜索用时 4 毫秒
1
1.
2.
Frølich Nicoline Trondal Jarle Caspersen Joakim Reymert Ingvild 《Tertiary Education and Management》2016,22(3):231-248
Despite striking similarities, the adoption and implementation of policy shifts regarding higher education governance vary considerably across the globe, suggesting a mixed picture of diversification and isomorphism both within and across national higher education systems. By unpacking one particular structural reform process, this paper focuses on mergers as both a governance tool and a governance result in higher education. The paper analyzes the strategic decisions taken by Norwegian higher education institutions during 2014 in the light of a proposed national reform to merge institutions in order to enhance quality in higher education. The empirical basis of the paper consists of analyses of the commissioned self-evaluations of the higher education institutions, and the strategic choices and dilemmas they expressed. The process can be seen as organizational engineering in the sense that it emerges from the self-evaluation process, but is also subject to governancing on the part of the ministry. 相似文献
3.
The emerging interdependent world order poses new challenges for States and citizens alike. For States, interdependence has meant a new concern with integration, whilst for citizens and authorities alike, greater mobility has raised new concerns about recognition of competences, qualifications, quality and transparency. The introduction of learning outcomes is one of the principal instruments to achieve this in higher education. This article analyses how the implementation of higher education learning outcomes (HELOs) can be seen as ambiguous governance and management tools, manifested as parts of international policy development and policy trends. These ambiguous tools intertwine with different disciplinary and stakeholder networks. The desire to implement HELOs in a more or less uniform way across as diverse contexts (countries, disciplines, institutions) as possible has led to a design strategy that favours generic definitions of learning outcomes. In the implementation process, these generic HELOs are experienced as ambiguous, meaning that they are characterised by an openness to different interpretations. This opens up a space of discretionary and interpretational latitude, either because HELOs are assimilated to traditional path dependencies, or because they allow institutional agents (such as institutional leaders and others) the space to introduce change. The ambiguity of HELOs simultaneously provides the flexibility for contextually‐diverse implementation, ensures less comparability than initially envisaged, and opens up the possibility for change, although change is contingent on structures and processes that are external to the policy process itself. HELOs are thus a paradigm case of the centrality of context in policy implementation studies. 相似文献
4.
Joakim Caspersen Jens‐Christian Smeby Per Olaf Aamodt 《European Journal of Education》2017,52(1):20-30
The growing interest for measurement of learning outcomes relates to long lines of development in higher education, the request for accountability, intensified through international reforms and movements such as the development and implementation of qualifications frameworks. In this article, we discuss relevant literature on different approaches to measurement and how learning outcomes are measured, what kinds of learning outcomes are measured, and why learning outcomes are measured. Three dimensions are used to structure the literature: Whether the approaches emphasise generic or disciplinary skills and competence, self‐assessment or more objective test based measures (including grades), and how the issue of the contribution from the education program or institution (the value‐added) are discussed. It is pointed out that large scales initiatives that compare institutions and even nations seem to fall short because of the implicit and explicit differences in context, whilst small‐scale approaches suffer from a lack of relevance outside local contexts. In addition, competence (actual level of performance) is often confused with learning (gain and development) in many approaches, laying the ground for false assumptions about institutional process‐quality in higher education. 相似文献
5.
6.
Although grades are still considered important signifiers of graduates’ quality, greater attention has been paid to other measures of learning outcomes in higher education. This shift in attention is attributed to an increased focus on study quality, employability, quality development and accountability. This article examines how grades relate to different measures of self-reported learning outcomes in engineering, health programmes and education programmes. Longitudinal data from national surveys in Norway are analysed in combination with data from public registers. Self-reported learning outcomes are related to student engagement and factors indicative of effective educational practices, while grades are related more to student background characteristics. Self-reported learning outcomes therefore measure individual gain or value added, using the personal starting point as a reference In this regard, this paper argues that it is important to critically discuss what kind of measures should be used as learning outcomes. 相似文献
1