工程及科技教育認證制度實施之研究：大學教師之觀點

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：31

、訪客IP：3.139.240.142

姓名

林妙真(Miao-chen Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

工程及科技教育認證制度實施之研究：大學教師之觀點
(To Explore the Impact of Implementing of Engineering Accreditation: The Perspectives of Faculty, Chairpersons and Deans)

相關論文

★ 服務學習融入師資培育: 以線上課輔活動為例	★ 閱讀教學與國民小學學童閱讀動機及行為的關係—以2005年PIRLS資料為例
★ 大學工科教師對成果導向認證制度之態度研究	★ 大學新進教師工作壓力與專業發展之探究~以北部某國立大學為例
★ 探究國內大一新生解決問題歷程與思考風格之關係-以機械系為例	★ 經驗的聆聽、凝視與回觀─我在沈昭良的攝影課上
★ 生命與教學之舞道─從雲門舞集2駐校課程看見自己	★ 課堂教學對於培養工學院與資電學院大ㄧ學生核心能力的影響
★ 以成果導向教學探討大一國文課程	★ 以核心能力探討大一國文之學習成效
★ 一般生與在職生合作型問題解決模式之實證研究:以資電學院實作課程為例	★ 國中機率課程：設計與實驗
★ 臺灣與香港中學階段機率與統計主題的教科書研究	★ 團隊合作與個人轉化之歷程探究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

國內工程及科技教育認證制度實施至今已十年，但未有任何實證研究進行探究認證所帶來的影響及實施成效。本研究以全國大學工學院與資電學院教師為對象，深入探究認證制度實施之後，對課程與教學、學生學習成效與專業成長等方面之影響，並分析認證實施過程中，系所內部權力結構與社會系統之運作情形。
本研究取向為混合研究，研究者根據研究目的、待答問題及文獻探討，編製「工程教育認證實施之調查問卷」。以2011年通過工程及科技教育認證的系所共7706位教師為研究母群體，採便利抽樣共發出1135份，回收的有效問卷為489份，有效回收率為43.08%。問卷調查所得資料，採用平均數與標準差、t 檢定與單因子變異數分析等統計方法，分別探究大學教師於課程與教學、學生核心能力與專業成長各向度的得分，並分析背景變項之影響。訪談對象含院長、系主任與教師共20位，並以一般歸納法（A general inductive approach）分析質性資料。
以SSM系統方法學（Soft Systems Methodology）為理論架構，透過文獻探討、問卷調查與訪談等資料的發現，歸納出下列七項結論：
一、工程及科技教育認證多為由上而下的政策推行，造成教師對缺乏認證的認同。
二、系所主管是工程及科技教育認證推動與執行的關鍵人物；系所主管的態度對於該系持續改善的落實具重大的影響。
三、問卷調查顯示大學教師普遍感受到認證帶來的正面改變，此點與訪談內容有所差異。
四、曾經擔任過校內主管者比一般教師在「課程與教學」、「專業成長」以及「學生學習成效」等方面有較深的知覺。
五、教師對於認證的精神認識不清，也深深影響著其對認證的認同。
六、儘管大學教師認同工程及科技教育認證持續改善之機制與精神，但仍質疑認證的進行方式能否達到持續改善之成效。
七、當系所內部的價值觀、角色、規範明確且具交互作用時，是工程及科技教育認證制度的最佳實務
過去的研究極少從質性研究取向的資料分析認證實施成效與實施後之系所內部權力結構與社會系統運作。本研究藉由SSM系統方法學（Soft Systems Methodology）的理論，並依據研究結論，提出建議作為工程相關系所推動認證或新政策時的參考。

摘要(英)

Engineering accreditation has been implemented for ten years in Taiwan. The aims of this study attempt to explore what impact, has the accreditation had on curriculum and instruction of the programs, faculty development and students learning outcomes, and analyze the political structures within the programs and the operations of social systems on the processes of accreditation.
The research approach of this study is mixed-methods research. The data were collected by questionnaire survey, in-depth interview and participant observation. The population of this study was 7706 faculty members from engineering programs passed by engineering accreditation until 2011. 1135 questionnaires were sent, and the total valid returned questionnaires were 489. Data were analyzed by the method of descriptive and inferential statistics, including mean and standard deviation, t-test, and ANOVA. Finally, twenty engineering faculty members, program chairpersons, and deans were interviewed. Consequently, both the Soft Systems Methodology and general inductive approach were adopted to analyze and interpret the qualitative data.
Based on the results of various data from literature review, questionnaires and interviews, the following seven points are summarized:
1. Engineering Accreditation in Taiwan was implemented mostly by top-down, and it resulted in a lack of faculty’s identity.
2. Program chairperson played an important role in the engineering accreditation implementation; program chairperson’s attitude made significant impact on the continuous improvement of to-be-accredited programs.
3. The survey showed that faculty members generally felt positive changes from engineering accreditation, but this result was inconsistent with interview contents.
4. Faculty who served as administrators of the university tended to have more in-depth consciousness toward the impact of accreditation upon curriculum and instruction, faculty development, and student learning outcomes.
5. If faculty didn’t understand what the engineering accreditation is all about, it tended to affect their identity to be involved.
6. Even though most of the faculty agreed the aim and mechanism of engineering accreditation, they still doubt that weather the continuous improvement could be accomplished by implementing the accreditation.
7. The best practice of engineering accreditation only happened when the internal values of the faculty and the norms of programs had reached balance.
There have been few studies to analyze the effects of engineering accreditation and the internal political structures of programs and the operations of social systems on the processes of accreditation through qualitative approach. This study wishes to serve as a basis for further study of evaluating the effectiveness of engineering accreditation in Taiwan.

關鍵字(中)

★ 工程教育認證
★ 成果導向
★ 大學教師
★ 品質保證

關鍵字(英)

★ engineering accreditation
★ outcomes-based
★ faculty
★ quality assurance

論文目次

第一章緒論
第一節研究背景與動機
第二節研究目的與問題.
第三節名詞釋義.
第四節研究範圍與限制.
第二章文獻探討
第一節品質保證乃高等教育之趨勢
第二節工程及科技教育認證制度之評估研究
第三節 SSM系統方法學（Soft Systems Methodology）.
第四節大學教師之特質.
第三章研究方法
第一節研究設計.
第二節研究對象
第三節研究工具
第四節資料處理與分析.
第四章研究結果分析與討論
第一節問卷資料基本分析.
第二節工程及科技教育認證介入與改變之歷程.
第三節工程及科技教育認證之推行對系所內部權力結構的影響
第四節工程及科技教育認證之實行對系所內部社會系統之影響
第五章結論與建議
第一節結論
第二節研究貢獻
第三節建議
第四節省思
參考文獻
一、中文部份
二、英文部份
附錄
附錄一專家問卷.
附錄二預試問卷
附錄三正式問卷
附錄四訪談大綱

參考文獻

一、中文部分
1. 中華教育工程學會（2013）。工程教育認證規範（EAC 2013）。台北市。
2. 中華教育工程學會（2013）。持續改善機制【圖】。取自http://www.ieet.org.tw/Info.aspx?n=whatisac
3. 王令宜、吳清山（2010）。我國推動高等教育品質保證系統之探究。教育資料集刊，48，1-18。
4. 王保進（2011）。引導學生學習成效品質保證機制之推動與落實－論第二週期系所評鑑之核心內涵。評鑑雙月刊，32，36-40。
5. 王保進、郭玟杏（2005）。歐盟高等教育區域計畫之發展及啟示。教育研究月刊，137，35-55。
6. 王昭正、朱瑞淵（1999）。參與觀察法。臺北：弘智文化。
7. 王麗雲（2013）。大學自辦外部評鑑的作法與展望。評鑑雙月刊，44。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2013/07/01/6028.aspx
8. 余曉雯（2008）。德國高等教育品質保證機制之研究。國科會成果報告。NSC 96- 2413- H- 260- 010。
9. 吳清山（2006）。臺灣教育改革的檢討與策進：1994-2006。教育資料集刊，32，1-22。
10. 宋曜廷、潘佩妤（2010）。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，97-130。
11. 李振清（2006）。建立有效教學機制：教師發展是高等教育評鑑的核心議題。評鑑雙月刊，3，9-12。
12. 周祝瑛（2002）。由國際比較觀點談多元智慧及幼稚教育。取自http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~iaezcpc/C-%20multiple%20intelligence%20and%20%20child%20edu%20in%20comparitve%20edu.htm
13. 周祝瑛（2002）。全球化潮流中的臺灣高等教育。馮增俊主編，「WTO與中國教育」。廣東：中山大學出版社。
14. 金文森（2010）。兩岸就業市場趨勢下營建-建築-設計產業技術基本能力培育之研究--因應兩岸就業市場趨勢建構我國營建產業技術基本能力之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC 98-2511-S-324-001）。台中：朝陽科技大學。
15. 徐明珠（2006）。從大學高錄取率分析高等教育之問題與發展。2011年4月15日，取自http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/EC/095/EC-B-095-020.htm。
16. 張慶勳（2012）。學校組織行為。台北：五南。
17. 畢恆達（2008）。詮釋學與質性研究。載於胡幼慧（編著），質性研究：理論、方法與本土女性研究實例（頁27-46）。台北：巨流。
18. 陳幼慧（2013）。建置學生學習成效檢核機制。取自http://newdoc.nccu.edu.tw/coursemap/f7fcabcd-4139-4a26-902c-5141e1239b41.pdf
19. 陳恆光（2006）。剖析IEET 認證實戰經驗。評鑑雙月刊，2，39-41。
20. 陳碧祥（2001）。我國大學教師升等制度與教師專業成長及學校發展地位關係之探究。國立台北師範學院學報，14，163-208。
21. 黃淑玲（2011）。量身訂做學生學習成效之具體建議。評鑑雙月刊，32。
22. 黃淑玲、池俊吉（2010）。如何評估學生學習成效-以加州州立大學長灘分校系所訪視與測量中心之經驗為例。評鑑雙月刊，28。
23. 黃瑞琴（2004）。質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理。
24. 楊永斌、葛家豪、張佩芬、劉曼君（2005）。我國工程教育認證制度現況及其未來發展。國家菁英季刊，1(3)，111-126。
25. 楊振昇（2006）。學校組織發展。教育研究月刊，144，56-68。
26. 楊瑩、余曉雯、莊小萍、黃照耘著（2008）。歐盟高等教育品質保證制度。台北：財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會，高等教育出版社。
27. 甄曉蘭（2004）。中小學教師的專業成長。載於中國教育學會、中華民國師範教育學會（主編），教師專業成長問題研究（頁53-72）。台北市：學富。
28. 甄曉蘭（2010）。教師評鑑與專業發展：有關或無關。取自http://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Attachment/0624902970.pdf
29. 劉春榮（1998）。教師專業自主。教育資料集刊，23，25-38。
30. 劉曼君（2008）。界定核心能力標準展現自我特色。評鑑雙月刊，11，38-39。
31. 蔡敏玲（2001）。尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏：教育質性研究歷程的展現。臺北：桂冠。
32. 謝文全（2008）。教育行政學（第三版）。臺北：高等教育。
33. 簡紅珠（2005）。對臺灣中小學教學文化的幾點思考。課程與教學季刊，8（3），1-13。
34. 譚光鼎（2004）。圍牆裡的世界—學校文化與革新的討論。載於張建成（主編），文化、人格與教育（頁303-338）台北市：心理出版社。
二、西文部分
1. Abu-Jdayil, B. & Al-Attar, H. (2010). Curriculum assessment as a direct tool in ABET outcomes assessment in a chemical engineering programme. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35 (5), 489–505. doi:10.1080/03043797.2010.483276
2. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (2013). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2013 – 2014. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/DisplayTemplates/DocsHandbook.aspx?id=3149
3. Al-Nashash, H., Khaliq, A., Qaddoumi, N., Al-Assaf, Y. Assaleh, K., Dhaouadi, R. & El-Tarhuni, M. (2009). Improving electrical engineering education at the American University of Sharjah through continuous assessment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34 (1), 15–28. doi: 10.1080/03043790802710169
4. Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57, 13–19.
5. Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53, 27–30.
6. Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 21–30.
7. Arnold, G. B. (2004). Symbolic politics and institutional boundaries in curriculum reform: The case of National Sectarian University. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(5), 572–593.
8. Arreola, R.A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive Faulty Evaluation System (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker
9. Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
10. Augusti, G. (2009). EUR-ACE: the European Accreditation system of engineering education and its global context. In Gray, P.& Patil, A. (eds.) "Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective". Springer.
11. Baker, R. L. (2004). Keystones of regional accreditation: Intentions, outcomes, and sustainability. In P. Hernon & R. E. Dugan (Ed.), Outcomes assessment in higher education (pp.1-14). Westport, CONN.: Libraries Unlimited
12. Bocock, J. (1994). Curriculum change and professional identity: The role of the university lecturer. In J. Bocock & D. Watson (Eds.), Managing the university curriculum: Making common cause (pp. 116–126). Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
13. Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions for Higher Education, 145, 7-27.
14. Callison, D. (2000). Rubrics. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17 (2), 34-6.
15. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.
16. Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systemsmethodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.
17. Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L.R., and Hamilton, E. A. (2008). Conceptualizing Engagement: Contribution of Faculty to Student Engagement in Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (3), 339-53. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00983.x
18. Chua, C. (2004). Perception of quality in higher education. In R. Carmichael (Ed.), Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2004, Adelaide, Australia, 7–9 July 2004 (pp. 181–186). Melbourne: Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).
19. Cowan, J. (2009). Quality Assurance in European Engineering Education: Present and Future Challenges. In Gray, P.& Patil, A. (eds.) "Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective". Springer.
20. Cranmer, S.(2006). Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 169-184
21. Cronbach L. J., (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16(4), 297-334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
22. Dabney Creighton, S., Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., & Ernst, E. (2001). A comprehensive system for student and program assessment: Lessons learned. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 81–88.
23. Daenzer, W. F. (ed). (1976). Systems engineering. Cologne: Peter Hanstein.
24. Eaton, J. S. (2003). Is accreditation accountable? The continuing conversation between accreditation and the federal government. [CHEA Monograph Series, 1]. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
25. Eijkman, H. (2008). Web 2.0 as a non-foundational network-centric learning space. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 93–104.
26. Eijkman, H., Kayali, O., & Yeomans, S. (2009). Using soft systems thinking to confront the politics of innovation in engineering education. In Patil, A. S. & Gray P. J. (Eds.), Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective (pp.223-234). New York: Springer.
27. Ewell, P. (2008). No correlation: Musings on some myths about quality. Change, 40(6), 8-13.
28. Ford, J., Ford, L. & McNamara, R. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change, 15(2), pp.105-121.
29. Freeston, I. (2009). Progressing Towards Global Standards in Engineering education. Presented at the ENAEE Workshop, Brussels, 22 January 2009.
30. Froyd, J., Layne, J. & Watson, K. (2006). Issues Regarding Change in Engineering Education. 36th ASEE/EEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28–31, San Diego, CA.
31. Froyd, J., Penberthy, D., & Watson, K. (2000). Good educational experiments are not always good change processes. 30th ASEE/EEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 18–21, Kansas City, MO.
32. Fullan, M., Miles, M.B.,＆Taylor, G. (1980). Organization development in schools：The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 50 (1), 121-183.
33. Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14-17.
34. Grace, M.D. (1997). Organizational climate and teacher autonomy: implications for educational reform. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(5), 218-221.
35. Gravenhorst, K. B., Werkman, R., & Boonstra, J. (2003). The change capacity of organizations: General assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52(1), 83-105.
36. Gray, P. J. & Patil, A. (2009a). Internal and External Quality Assurance Approaches for Improvement and Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. In Patil, A. S. & Gray P. J. (Eds.), Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective (pp.299-308). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0555-0_22
37. Gray, P. J. & Patil, A. (2009b). Internal and External Quality Assurance Approaches for Improvement and Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. In Patil, A. S. & Gray P. J. (Eds.), Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective (pp.299-308). New York: Springer.
38. Gray, P. J., Patil, A. S., & Codner, G. (2009). The background of quality assurance in higher education and engineering education. In Patil, A. S. & Gray P. J. (Eds.), Engineering Education Quality Assurance: A Global Perspective (pp.3-25). New York: Springer.
39. Gruba, P., Moffat, A., Sondergaard, H., & Zobel, J. (2004). What drives curriculum change? In Conferences in Research and Practice in Information. Paper presented at the Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.
40. Hall, A. D. (1974). Three dimensional morphology of systems engineering. In F. Rapp (Ed.), Contributions to a philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
41. Hamilton, N. W. (2007). Faculty autonomy and obligation. Academe Online, January–February. AAUP: Washington DC.
42. Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior. (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
43. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
44. Harper, B. J. & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Tightening Curricular Connections: CQI and Effective Curriculum Planning. Research in Higher Education, 51(6), 505-527. DOI 10.1007/s11162-010-9167-2.
45. Harper, B. J. (2008). Tightening curricular cohesion: The influence of faculty continuous improvement activities on student learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
46. Harvey, L. & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming Quality Evaluation: Moving on. In Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B. & Rosa, M. J. (eds.). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 225-245). Dordrecht: Springer.
47. Huba, M. E., and Freed, J. E.(2000). Learning-Centered Assessment on College Campuses. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
48. Jones, E. A. (2002). Transforming the curriculum: Preparing students for a changing world. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(3), 124.
49. Jones, S.A.,& Houghtalen R.(2000). Using senior design capstone as model for graduate education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 126(2), 83-88.
50. Koehn, E. (1997). Engineering perceptions of ABET accreditation criteria. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123(2), 66-70.
51. Koehn, E. (1999). Engineering design component for civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(2), 35-39.
52. Koehn, E. (2000). Professional program criteria for civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 126(4), 174-179.
53. Koehn, E. (2004). Enhancing Civil Engineering Education and ABET Criteria through Practical Experience. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130(2), 77–83.
54. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
55. Lambert, A. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Lattuca, L. R. (2007). More than meets the eye: Curricular and programmatic effects on student learning. Research in Higher Education, 48 (2), 141-168. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9040-5
56. Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., and Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering Change: A Study of the Impact of EC2000. Final Report. Philadelphia PA: ABET.
57. Lattuca, L. R., Yin, A. C., & McHale, I. M. (2010). Influences on Engineering Faculty Members’ Teaching and Beliefs about Teaching. Research paper presented at the 2010 Annual Conference of The Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN.
58. Levy, J. (2000). Engineering Education in the United Kingdom: Standards, Quality Assurance and Accreditation. International Journal of Electrical Engineering, 16(2), 136-145.
59. Lewis, R.G., & Smith, D.A. (1994). Total Quality in Higher Education. St. Lucie Press.
60. Lincoln & Guba. (2000).
61. Lipnevich, A. A.、McCallen, L. N.、Miles, K. P.& Smith J. K. (2013). Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9
62. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
63. Maassen, P. A. M. (1997). Quality in European Higher Education: recent trends and their historical roots. European Journal of Education, 32(2), 111-127.
64. Martin F. (1995). Making Reengineering Human. Journal of Services Marketing, 9:3.
65. McGourty, J., Sebastian, C., & Swart, W. (1998). Developing a comprehensive assessment program for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 355–361. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00365.x
66. Mcgourty, J., Shuman, L., Besterfield-Scare, M., Atman, C., Miller, R., Olds, B., Rogers, G. and Wolfe, H. (2002). Preparing for ABET EC2000: Research-Based Assessment Methods and Processes. The International Journal of Engineering Education. 18(2), 157-167
67. McWilliam, E., Hearn, G., & Haseman, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity for creative futures: What barriers and opportunities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 247–253.
68. Merton, P., Clark, C., Richardson, J., & Froyd, J. (2001). Engineering curricular change across the foundation coalition: Potential lessons from qualitative research. Proceedings, Thirty-First ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 3, Reno, NV, F4B15–20.
69. Oberst, B.S. & Jones, R.C. (2000). International trends in engineering accreditation and quality assurance. Paper presented at the Second Global Conference on Engineering Education, Wismar, Germany.
70. Patil, A., & Codner, G. (2007). Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and proposal for global accreditation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 639–651.
71. Patil, A., & Codner, G. (2008). Accreditation in engineering education: Findings from selected Asia-Pacific countries. In J. Steinbach (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Deans Conference – Special Challenges in Engineering Education, 2008. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI): Berlin, Germany.
72. Payzin, E. & Platin, B. E. (2012). A decade of experience on outcome based accreditation: still a long way to go. Retrieved from http:// www.enaee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Payzin.doc‎
73. Peshkin, A. (1985). Virtuous subjectivity: In the participant-observer’s I’s. In D. N. Berg, & K. K. Smith (Eds.), Exploring clinical methods for social research (pp. 267-281). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
74. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
75. Popham, W.J. (2005). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
76. Rauhvargers, A.(2004). Improving the recognition of qualifications in the framework of the Bologna process. European Journal of Education, 39(3):331-347.
77. Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior ( 7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
78. Sabatini. (1997). Teaching and research synergism: The undergraduate research experience. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123(3), 98-102.
79. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5, 77–84.
80. Schachterle, L. (1998). Outcomes Assessment at WPI: A Pilot Accreditation Visit Under Engineering Criteria 2000. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), pp. 115-120.
81. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
82. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London; Temple Smith.
83. Seymour, D. (1995). Once upon a campus: Lessons for improving quality and productivity in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press. pp 184
84. Spradley, James P. & McCurdy, David W. (1988). The cultural experience. Ethnography in complex society. Prospects Heights, Illinois: Waveland.
85. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
86. Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Odell, M., Hodeges, J., et al. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246–257.
87. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
88. Tener, R. K. (1999). Outcomes assessment and the faculty culture: Conflict or congruence? Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), 65-71.
89. WASC rubrics http://www.wascsenior.org/content/assessment-rubrics
90. Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2002). Developing management skills (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
91. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
92. Zytowski, D. G. (1970). The concept of work values. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 18, 176-186.
93. Zytowski, D.G. (2006). Super work values inventory–revised: technical manual (version 1.0). Retrieved from June, 16, 2011, from http://www.Kuder.com/PublicWeb/swv_manual.aspx

指導教授

張佩芬(Pei-feng Chang)

審核日期

2014-7-24

推文