期刊文献+

学位授权点专项评估指标体系的效度研究——以法律硕士专项评估为例 被引量:2

On the Validity of the Specific Evaluation Indicator System on the Units Authorized to Confer Academic Degrees——With the Special Evaluation on Juris Masters as an example
下载PDF
导出
摘要 学位授权点专项评估指标体系的效度决定了专项评估制度能否发挥对学位与研究生质量的监督作用。以法律硕士专项评估指标体系为研究对象,以自我评估报告为研究基础,分析专项评估指标体系中师资队伍、人才培养、质量保证等指标的效度。通过对专项评估指标体系一级指标权重、二级重点指标设置、二级指标和测评点分布、评测点得分标准、配套表格和材料的分析,发现我国法律硕士专项评估指标体系基本上能够全面反映法律硕士学位点的建设状况,但也存在一些问题。 The validity of the specific indicator system for qualification evaluation on the authorized degree-conferring unit determines whether the system can play the role of supervising the quality of academic degree holders and postgraduates.Based on the evaluation reports on juris masters,this paper takes the specific indicator system for qualification evaluation as the research object and analyzes the validity of the indicators for teaching staff,student training and quality assurance.Through the analysis of the weights of the first-level indicators,the settings of the second-level indicators,the distribution of the second-level indicators and the evaluation points,the scoring criteria of the evaluation points,the attached forms to the system and relevant materials,this paper concludes that the specific indicator system can effectively reflect the status quo of the units authorized to confer juris master degrees,yet,there are still some existing problems.
作者 袁钢 YUAN Gang(Law School,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088)
出处 《研究生教育研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2018年第6期7-13,共7页 Journal of Graduate Education
基金 国家社会科学基金项目"法律硕士教育评价指标体系研究"(项目编号:12BFX005)
关键词 学位授权点 效度 合格评估 专项评估 指标体系 units authorized to confer academic degrees validity qualification evaluation specific evaluation indicator system
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献24

  • 1Kane, M. T.. Current concerns in validity theory [ J]. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2001 (4).
  • 2Christopher DeLu:a. Contemporary Validity Theory in Educational Assessment: Integrating an Interpretivistic Approach through Case Study Methodology, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Ottawa, ON. 2009.
  • 3Messiek, S.. Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.) , Educational Measurement (3rd ed. ) [MI. New York: A- merican Council on Education/Macmillan, 1989 : 13 - 103.
  • 4Langenfeld, T. E. & Crocker, L. M. , The evolution of validity theory : public school testing, the courts, and incompatible interpretations [ J ]. Educational Assessment, 1994 (2).
  • 5Kane, M. T. , Current concerns in validity theory [J]. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2001(4).
  • 6Messiek, S. ,Validity. In R.L. Linn( Ed. ) ,Educational Measurement (3rd ed. ) [ M ]. New York: Ameri- canCouncil on Education and Maeminan.1989:17.
  • 7Kane, M. T. , Current Concerns in Validity Theory [ J]. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2001 (4).
  • 8Messick, S.. Validity. In R.L. Linn( Ed. ) , Educational Measurement (3rd ed. ) [ M ]. New York: Ameri- can Council on Education and Macmillan, 1989:13.
  • 9Gielen, S. , Dochy, F. & Dierck, S.. Evaluating the consequential validation of new modes of assessment : the influence of assessment on learning : including pre - post - and their effects. In : Segers, M.. Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards [ M ]. Kluwer Academic Publishers,2003:46.
  • 10Kane, M. T.. Current concerns in validity theory [J]. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2001 (4).

共引文献3

同被引文献14

引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部