本文選題：審核評估 + 評估方案��； 參考：《大連理工大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：高等教育評估發(fā)展至今,已形成院校評估、專業(yè)認(rèn)證、質(zhì)量審核、綜合排名等多元化評估模式。在嚴(yán)把高等教育質(zhì)量關(guān),實行高校分類管理,鼓勵高校特色辦學(xué)的高等教育宏觀管理政策指導(dǎo)下,教育評估體如何現(xiàn)國家質(zhì)量意志,尊重學(xué)校自我管理,維護(hù)各方教育利益,是值得關(guān)注的問題。各類評估模式存在目標(biāo)適切性差異,因此,實施高等教育分類評估,模式恰當(dāng),有的放矢,對于發(fā)揮學(xué)校主觀能動性,實現(xiàn)評估合作關(guān)系,維護(hù)和提高高等教育質(zhì)量都有積極意義。 通過對高等教育評估模式及質(zhì)量保證國內(nèi)外現(xiàn)狀的文獻(xiàn)研究,本文認(rèn)為各國審核評估以高等教育質(zhì)量保證體系為核心,重視過程,突出高校自我管理與改進(jìn),具有方案靈活性強(qiáng),維護(hù)學(xué)校自治,社會參與度高的特點。實施合格評估與質(zhì)量審核相結(jié)合的院校評估,既有利于保障新建院校的基本辦學(xué)資質(zhì),又有利于鼓勵合格院校發(fā)揮優(yōu)勢,辦出特色。因此,審核評估方案及其基礎(chǔ)性實施條件具有重要的研究價值。 本文從組織管理、審核范圍、審核過程、審核后續(xù)等幾個主要方面對英國和新西蘭最新院校審核方案進(jìn)行了全面深入的對比研究,認(rèn)為英國審核評估強(qiáng)調(diào)教育機(jī)構(gòu)公信力,重視學(xué)生意見,以審核結(jié)果為依據(jù)實現(xiàn)質(zhì)量問責(zé)；新西蘭審核評估重視學(xué)校自主權(quán),接受社會監(jiān)督,元評估機(jī)制完善,并得出兩國質(zhì)量體系特色化、社會參與多元化、質(zhì)量信息透明化的共同特征。 根據(jù)我國新一輪高等教育評估對審核模式的迫切需求,立足國情,汲取經(jīng)驗,本文認(rèn)為應(yīng)從審核目標(biāo)、組織管理、審核范圍、審核程序等主要方面搭建我國審核評估的方案框架,做到關(guān)注質(zhì)量保證,建立合作關(guān)系,突出辦學(xué)特色,完善考察流程。 方案的實施需要內(nèi)外部質(zhì)量體系的通力配合,政策環(huán)境是基礎(chǔ),評估文化是條件,質(zhì)量保證是核心。在指導(dǎo)院校審核,促進(jìn)質(zhì)量改進(jìn)方面,歐洲高等教育區(qū)質(zhì)量保證的系統(tǒng)化標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和制度化管理走在了世界的前列,其內(nèi)外部質(zhì)量保證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和元評估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)構(gòu)成了完整的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系。本文以歐洲高等教育區(qū)質(zhì)量保證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為案例進(jìn)行研究,認(rèn)為該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系重視各層次質(zhì)量政策與流程,尊重學(xué)校發(fā)展愿景,強(qiáng)調(diào)評估機(jī)構(gòu)資質(zhì),推廣質(zhì)量信息系統(tǒng),努力實現(xiàn)歐洲層面質(zhì)量保證體系互認(rèn),經(jīng)驗共享,并提出深化質(zhì)量政策與質(zhì)量意識,完善內(nèi)外部質(zhì)量保證標(biāo)準(zhǔn),建立審核評估元評估制度的相關(guān)建議,為審核評估的實施夯實基礎(chǔ),建立思路。
[Abstract]:So far, the evaluation of higher education has formed a diversified evaluation model, such as college evaluation, professional certification, quality audit, comprehensive ranking and so on. Under the guidance of the macro management policy of strictly controlling the quality of higher education, carrying out the classified management of higher education and encouraging the universities to run schools with characteristics, the educational evaluation body shows the national quality will, respects the self-management of the schools, and maintains the educational interests of all sides. It is a matter of concern. Therefore, the implementation of higher education classification evaluation, the model is appropriate, targeted, to give play to the subjective initiative of the school, to achieve evaluation cooperation, It is of positive significance to maintain and improve the quality of higher education. Through the literature research on the evaluation mode of higher education and the current situation of quality assurance at home and abroad, this paper holds that the audit and evaluation of various countries take the quality assurance system of higher education as the core, attach importance to the process, and highlight the self-management and improvement of colleges and universities. Has the plan flexibility strong, maintains the school autonomy, the social participation degree high characteristic. The combination of qualified assessment and quality audit is not only conducive to ensuring the basic qualifications of new colleges, but also conducive to encouraging qualified colleges and universities to bring their advantages into full play and create their own characteristics. Therefore, the audit evaluation program and its basic implementation conditions have important research value. This paper makes a comprehensive and in-depth comparative study of the audit schemes of the latest institutions in the UK and New Zealand from the aspects of organizational management, audit scope, audit process, audit follow-up, and so on. It is considered that the British audit evaluation emphasizes the credibility of educational institutions. Pay attention to students' opinions and realize quality accountability on the basis of audit results. New Zealand audit and evaluation emphasizes school autonomy, accepts social supervision, improves meta-evaluation mechanism, and draws a conclusion that the quality system of the two countries is characterized and social participation is diversified. Common features of quality information transparency. According to the urgent needs of the new round of higher education evaluation in our country, based on the national conditions and learning experience, this paper holds that the audit target, organization, management and audit scope should be taken into account. The main aspects of audit procedure are to set up the framework of our country's audit and evaluation, to pay attention to the quality assurance, to establish the cooperative relationship, to highlight the characteristics of running a school, and to perfect the inspection process. The implementation of the scheme needs the cooperation of internal and external quality system, the policy environment is the basis, the evaluation culture is the condition, and the quality assurance is the core. In the aspect of guiding college audit and promoting quality improvement, the systematic standards and systematized management of quality assurance in European higher education area are in the forefront of the world, and their internal and external quality assurance standards and meta-evaluation standards constitute a complete standard system. This paper takes the quality assurance standard of European higher education area as a case study, and thinks that the standard system attaches importance to the quality policy and process at all levels, respects the school development vision, emphasizes the evaluation of institutional qualification, and promotes the quality information system. To realize the mutual recognition and experience sharing of quality assurance system at the European level, and put forward some suggestions on deepening quality policy and quality awareness, perfecting internal and external quality assurance standards, and establishing audit and evaluation meta-evaluation system. In order to audit and evaluate the implementation of tamping the foundation, the establishment of ideas.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：G649.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃福濤;;高等教育質(zhì)量保證的國際趨勢與中國的選擇[J];北京大學(xué)教育評論;2010年01期

2 汪雅霜;楊曉江;;英國高等教育質(zhì)量審計制度的演變[J];大學(xué)(學(xué)術(shù)版);2010年10期

3 周湘林;周光禮;;我國高等教育評估政策范式變革初探[J];高教探索;2009年04期

4 史雯婷;;芬蘭高等教育機(jī)構(gòu)質(zhì)量保障體系的審核——《2005-2007年審核手冊》[J];中國高等教育評估;2007年02期

5 畢家駒;進(jìn)入21世紀(jì)的英國高等教育質(zhì)量保證體系[J];交通高教研究;2004年04期

6 李志義;朱泓;劉志軍;;我國本科教學(xué)評估該向何處去?[J];高教發(fā)展與評估;2011年06期

7 張曉鵬;;國際高等教育評估模式的演進(jìn)及我們的選擇[J];中國大學(xué)教學(xué);2009年03期

8 張曉鵬;姜潔;;美國的高等教育審核評估——以田納西州為例[J];中國大學(xué)教學(xué);2011年09期

9 魏宏聚;;教育質(zhì)量觀的內(nèi)涵、演進(jìn)與啟示[J];教育導(dǎo)刊;2010年01期

10 周作宇;;論教育質(zhì)量觀[J];教育科學(xué)研究;2010年12期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 田恩舜;高等教育質(zhì)量保證模式研究[D];華中科技大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 胥雪剛;我國現(xiàn)行國家審計制度論析[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 田艷;中美高等教育評估制度的比較研究[D];青島大學(xué);2008年

3 胡月;南非高等院校審核研究及啟示[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2016167