期刊文献+

“以学生为本”的课堂教学质量评估体系初探 被引量:16

Constructing Student-oriented Classroom Teaching Quality Evaluation System
下载PDF
导出
摘要 “以学生为本”既是一种价值判断,也是一种方法论,落脚点在“学生”,归根到底是为了人的全面发展。为了有效地开展课堂教学质量评估,必须树立科学的评估观,建立“以学生为本”的课堂教学质量评估体系。“以学生为本”的课堂教学质量评估就是要尊重教育规律、尊重学生的主体地位,把学校的教育教学工作引导到致力于以学生的发展为出发点和落脚点上,全面提高教育教学质量。评估必须遵循本质属性、导向性、客观性、学生中心、发展性、可测性、简易性及定量与定性相结合、综合全面性的原则。目的在于诊断和改进教学,建立起有效的教学活动激励机制、规范的教学行为约束机制、科学合理的学校管理机制。 The student-oriented perspective is a value judgment and methodology based on students and, in the final analysis, encourages people's all-round development. In order to get an effective evaluation of classroom teaching quality, we must have a scientific evaluation perspective and build up a student-oriented classroom teaching quality evaluation system. The evaluation must follow educational principles, value the students' primary role, and lead the college's teaching mission to considering the students' development as its foundation. An evaluation must follow the principles of essential nature, guidance, objectivity, student-centeredness, expansibility, measurability, simplicity, and the synthesis of quantity and quality. The purpose is to evaluate and improve teaching, and to build up a mechanism of effective teaching encouragement, normal teaching obligation and scientific college management.
作者 张韵君
出处 《高教发展与评估》 2006年第3期51-55,共5页 Higher Education Development and Evaluation
关键词 课堂教学 教学质量 教学评估 以学生为本 主体地位 约束机制 激励机制 高校 教学管理 classroom teaching quality evaluation student-oriented
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献30

  • 1胡祖莹,魏红.教学评价中信息来源的可靠性研究[J].教师教育研究,1996,11(3):38-43. 被引量:25
  • 2吴文侃 杨汉清.比较教育学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2000.8. 被引量:3
  • 3Feldman, K. A. Instructional effectiveness of college teachers as judged by teachers themselves, current and former students, colleagues, administrators, and extenud (neutral) observers[J]. Research in Higher Education, 1989,(30):113-135. 被引量:1
  • 4Marsh, H.W. Students' evaluations of university teaching:Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility[ J ]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1984, ( 76 ) :707-754. 被引量:1
  • 5Brandenburg, D. C., Slindle, J. A and Batista, E. E.Student ratings of instruction: Validity and normative interpretations[J]. Research in Higher Education, 1977,(7):67-78. 被引量:1
  • 6Centra, J. A. Reflective Faculty Evaluation[M]. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1993. 被引量:1
  • 7Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In R.P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.) Effective Teaching in Higher Education[ M]. New York: Agathon. 1997.241-320. 被引量:1
  • 8Feldman, K. A. Classsize and students' evaluations of college teacher and courses: A close look [ J ]. Research in Higher Education, 1984, (21) :45-116. 被引量:1
  • 9McKeachie, W. J. Student ratings[J]. American Psychologist, 1997,(52) :1218-1225. 被引量:1
  • 10Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings[J]. American Psychologist, 1997, (52) : 1209-1217. 被引量:1

共引文献468

同被引文献174

引证文献16

二级引证文献121

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