English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 71578/104447 (69%)
造訪人次 : 19167724      線上人數 : 495
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112246


    題名: 高等教育機構資源、教師學術認知對教師多元升等影響之研究
    The impact of institutional resources and faculty perception of scholarship on Multi-promotion in higher education institutions
    作者: 劉品萱
    Liu, Pin Hsuan
    貢獻者: 陳榮政
    Chen, Jung Cheng
    劉品萱
    Liu, Pin Hsuan
    關鍵詞: 機構資源
    教師學術認知
    教師多元升等
    Institutional resources
    Faculty perception of scholarship
    Multi-Promotion
    日期: 2017
    上傳時間: 2017-08-28 11:56:47 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究旨在瞭解當前高等教育機構資源、教師學術認知與教師多元升等之現況;分析不同背景變項下,機構資源、教師學術認知及教師多元升等之差異;並探究高等教育機構資源、教師學術認知對教師多元升等之相關情形與預測力。本研究採用問卷調查法,並以臺灣目前大專院校的教師為研究對象,17所大學院校675位大學教師為樣本,回收有效問卷588份,可用回收率達87.11%。問卷調查結果採用描述性統計、t 檢定、單因子變異數分析、Person積差相關與多元逐步迴歸分析等統計方法進行分析,本研究分析結果如下:
    一、機構資源、教師學術認知與教師多元升等之知覺程度皆屬「中高程度表現」。
    二、不同「學校性質」、「學校類別」與「學校校齡」,與是否「參與教育部多元升等試辦計畫」、「獲得教育部競爭型計畫」之大學院校的教師,機構資源知覺程度有顯著差異。
    三、不同「性別」、「是否兼任行政職務」之大學院校的教師,教師學術認知知覺程度有顯著差異。
    四、不同「學校性質」、「學校類別」與「102學年度是否參與教育部多元升等試辦計畫」、有無獲得教育部「教學卓越計畫」與「區域教學資源中心計畫」,以及不同「年齡」、「服務年資」、「專業領域」之大學院校的教師,研究型升等之知覺程度有顯著差異。
    五、不同「學校性質」、「學校類別」、「學校定位」、102學年度與103學年度「是否參與教育部多元升等試辦計畫」、有無獲得教育部「頂尖大學計畫」與「典範科大計畫」之大學院校的教師,應用技術型升等之知覺程度有顯著差異。
    六、有無獲得教育部「教學卓越計畫」,與不同「服務年資」之大學院校的教師,「教學型升等」之知覺程度有顯著差異。
    七、機構資源、教師學術認知整體與教師多元升等各層面具有低度正相關關係存在。
    八、機構資源、教師學術認知部分層面對於教師多元升等各層面具有預測作用。
    The purposes of this study are to understand the current situation of institutional resources, faculty perception of scholarship, multi-promotion of faculty in Taiwan’s higher education institution; to analyze the diversity of different background variables in institutional resources, faculty perception of scholarship and multi-promotion of faculty in Taiwan’s higher education institution; to explore the relationship of institutional resources, faculty perception of scholarship and multi-promotion of of faculty in Taiwan’s higher education institution. Questionnaire survey was utilised in this study, and faculty form 15 higher education institutions in Taiwna were adopted as the research objects. 675 questionaires were sent out, which valid questionaires were 588. The validity of the responded questionaires was 87.11%. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient as well as multiple stepwise regression analysis. The conclusions of the study are as follows:
    1.Faculty’ perception of institutional resources, faculty perception of scholarship and three pathway of multi-promotion is above average.
    2.There is significant difference in faculty’ perception of institutional resources in terms of school type, school category, school age, participation in pilot plan of multi-promotion and competitive grant.
    3.There is significant difference in faculty’ perception of scholarship in terms of age and administrative faculty.
    4.There is significant difference in faculty’ perception of research-oriented pathway in terms of school type, school category, participation in pilot plan of multi-promotion in 102 academic year, Teaching Excellence Project, Regional Resource Center for Teaching and Learning Plan, age, seniority and discipline.
    5.There is significant difference in faculty’ perception of applicated-oriented pathway in terms of school type, school category, school orientation, participation in pilot plan of multi-promotion in 102 and 103 academic year, Top University Project and Exemplary University of Science and Technology Project.
    6.There is significant difference in faculty’ perception of teaching-oriented pathway in terms of Teaching Excellence Project and seniority.
    7.There is positive correlation among institutional resources, faculty perception of scholarship and three pathway of multi-promotion.
    8.Institutional resources and faculty perception of scholarship have a predictive effect on three pathway of multi-promotion.
    參考文獻: 壹、中文文獻
    王保進(2012)。第二週期系所評鑑的重點與準備方向。評鑑雙月刊,36,5-9。
    朱經明(2010)。教育及心理統計學。臺北市:五南。
    行政院(2008)。劉揆:教育政策首重人才培育。中華民國行政院:即時新聞。 取自 http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=F8BAE BE9491FC830&sms=99606AC2FCD53A3A&s=917B0857136101A4
    何希慧(2015)。國內外高等教育機構教師資格發展暨其升等制度規劃之研究結案報告。教育部委託之專題研究成果報告。臺北市:教育部。
    何希慧(2016a)。哈佛、喬治亞大學這樣做。高教創新,6,32-33。
    何希慧(2016b)。建立校務專業管理體制:連結校務研究、校務發展與自我評鑑。臺灣教育評論月刊,53(3),40-43。
    何希慧(2016c)。我國大學校院建構教師分流發展與多元升等制度之研究。科技部委託之專題研究成果報告(編號:MOST104-2410-H-845-011),未出版。
    吳志偉、張詩欣(2013),多元升等發展學校特色,高教技職簡訊,77,8-11。
    吳明隆(2007)。SPSS操作與應用:問卷統計分析實務。臺北市:五南。
    吳清山(2011)。我國高等教育革新的重要課題與未來發展之分析。長庚人文社會學報,4(2),241-280。
    宋玫玫、張德勝(2008)。大學校院教師對學校工作環境滿意度之研究。花蓮教育大學學報,26,155-178。
    宋嘉行(譯)(2009)。教研相長:解開大學教學與研究之謎=Clarifying Some Myths of Teaching and Research(原作者:郭位(Way Kuo)、Mark E. Troy)。新竹市: 清大出版社。
    李美華(譯)(1988)。社會科學研究方法(原作者:Earl R. B.)。臺北市:時英出版社。(原著出版年:1986)
    李嗣涔(2008)。大學分類的原則。臺大校友雙月刊,58,1-7。
    周祝瑛(2003)。淺談大學教學評鑑—以政大為例。研習資訊,22(3),49-57。
    周祝瑛(2008)。台灣教育怎麼辦?。臺北市:心理。
    林玉体(1988)。西洋教育史專題研究論文集,臺北市:文景。
    林俊瑩、謝亞恆、陳成宏(2014)。臺灣地區大專院校教師對學校評價的影響機制-學校屬性與教師分級的區隔作用。教育科學研究期刊,59(3),29-58。
    林海清(2012)。大學校務定位與發展的觀察省思。評鑑雙月刊,36,34 – 36。
    林珮萱(2013)。產學合作成顯學創造學生、大學與產業三贏。遠見雜誌,特刊:2013大學特刊。取自http://www.gvm.com.tw/Boardcontent_21824.html
    侯永琪(2006)。解讀2005美國新版卡內基高等教育機構分類表。評鑑雙月刊2,30 – 36。
    侯永琪(2007)。2005年美國新版卡內基高等教育機構分類表及其對我國大學分類之運用。高教評鑑,1(1),83-129。
    徐明珠(2002)。辦出特色就是一流大學。國家政策論壇,5(2),107-110。
    秦夢群(2013)。教育行政:理論部分。臺北市:五南。
    國研院科政中心(2015)。研發資源面面觀。取自https://pride.stpi.narl.org.tw/
    國家教育研究院(2012)。英國大學教授分級制度簡介。國家教育研究院國際教育訊息電子報,15,取自http://fepaper.naer.edu.tw/
    教育部(2013a)。教育部人才培育白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
    教育部(2013b)。發展典範科技大學計畫。臺北市:教育部。
    教育部(2013c)。教育部推動教師多元升等制度試辦計畫。臺北市:教育部。
    教育部(2015a)。英國大學教師晉升制度簡介。教育部電子報,663。取自http://epaper.edu.tw/
    教育部(2016a)。教育部推動教師多元升等制度試辦計畫說明。臺北市:教育部。
    教育部(2016b)。教育部補助大專校院推動教師多元升等制度試辦學校說明會簡報。取自http://www.edu.tw/Default.aspx
    教育部高等教育司(2006),透過競爭機制引導大學校院分類發展,高教簡訊,181,1-5。
    教育部統計處(2010)。我國教育類性別統計之國際比較。取自http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/99gender.pdf.
    教育部統計處(2015)。大專校院專任教師年齡結構變化分析。教育統計簡訊,24。
    梁琍玲(2015)。美國最優學術機構調查出爐--職員最在意成就與尊重。天下雜誌。取自http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5070041
    許品鵑、謝秉弘、陳麒竹(2015)。25年來臺灣大專校院校數變動趨勢,評鑑雙月刊,58,24-25。
    許筱君、詹郁萱(2014)。學術資本主義下我國頂尖大學計畫之省思。教育政策論壇,17(3),95-116。
    郭敏政,(2013)。自審建立大學品牌,高教技職簡訊,77,4-7。
    陳曼玲(2015)。建立課程品保與教師多元升等機制──專訪教育部高教司長黃雯玲。評鑑雙月刊,29,1-3。
    陳舜芬(1993)。高等教育論文集。臺北市:師大書苑。
    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定位關係之探究。國立臺北師範學院學報,14,163-208。
    陳維昭(2007)。臺灣高等教育的困境與因應。臺北市:國立臺灣大學出版中心。
    黃曉波(2014)。校務研究的起源與任務。高教技職簡訊,95,8-9。
    楊國賜(2006),新世紀高等教育的分類與定位,高教簡訊,182,3-5。
    楊朝祥(2013)。學歷通膨、學位貶值。財團法人國家政策研究基金會國政評論。取自http://www.npf.org.tw/1/12097
    楊雅婷(譯)(2009)。大學的功用(原作者:Clark Kerr)。臺北市:韋伯文化。(原著出版年:2001)
    尹祚芊、沈美真、黃武次與馬秀如(2010)。提升技職教育水準增強就業能力專案調查研究報告。臺北市:監察院。
    劉得任(2011)。學術自由與高等教育的社會責任。何卓飛(主持人),二十一世紀的學術專業。「新世代的大學定位與價值」國際學術研討會,國立臺灣師範大學。
    鄭瑞棠(2008)。科技大學以教學績效作為教師升等的可行性。評鑑雙月刊,11,44-45。
    賴鼎銘(2011)。大學學術專業的現況、挑戰與前瞻。何卓飛(主持人),二十一世紀的學術專業。「新世代的大學定位與價值」國際學術研討會,國立臺灣師範大學。
    戴曉霞(2000)。高等教育的大眾化與市場化。臺北市:揚智。
    戴曉霞(2002)。全球化及國家/市場關係之轉變:高等教育市場化之脈絡分析。載於戴曉霞、莫家豪與謝安邦(主編),高等教育市場化:台、港、中趨勢之比較(頁4-39)。臺北市:高等教育。

    貳、英文文獻
    American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2006). 1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure with 1970 interpretive comments. In AAUP Policy Documents & Reports (10th ed., pp. 3–11). Washington, DC: Author.
    Aldersley, S. F. (1995). Upward drift’ is alive and well. Change. 27(5), 51-56.
    Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
    Azman, N., Sirat, M. B. , & Samsudin, M. A. (2013). An Academic Life in Malaysia: A Wonderful Life or Satisfaction Not Guaranteed? In P. J. Bentley, H. Coats and I. R. Dobson (eds.), Job satisfaction around the academic world (pp. 167-186). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
    Bain K. (2004). What the best college teachers do? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Blackburn R. T., Lawrence J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Bleiklie, I. (1998). On justifying the different claims to academic freedom. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 299-316.
    Boyd K. B., Bergh D. D., & Ketchen J. D. (2010). Reconsidering the reputation–performance relationship: a resource-based view. Journal of Management, 36(3), 588-609.
    Boyer E. L. . (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Boyer E. L• (1987) College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
    Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694-707.
    Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W. T., & Heiland, P. A. (2006). Ideal and actual value patterns toward domains of scholarship in three types of colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, 129, 67-76.
    Bryson, C. (2004). What about the workers? The expansion of higher education and the transformation of academic work. Industrial Relations Journal, 35(1), 38–57.
    Caceres, C. R., & Paparoidamis, G. N. (2007). Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 41(7/8), 836-867.
    Cummings K. W. (2015). The Conditions of Continuity and the Drivers of Change. In Cummings W.K., Teichler U. (Eds.), The relevance of academic work in comparative perspective (pp. 17-39). Cham, ZG: Springer.
    De Mours, G. R., Abrams, D., Retter, C., Gunnarsdottir, S., & Ando, K. (2009). Identification as an organizational anchor: How identification and job satisfaction combine to predict turnover intention. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 540-557.
    Dochy, F., Scgcrs, M. , & Buchl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145-186.
    Ender, J., & Weert, E. (2009a). The changing face of academic life. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Enders, J. & de Weert, E., (2009b). Towards a t-shaped profession: academic work and career in the knowledge society. In Enders, J. &de Weert, E. (Eds). The changing face of academic life. Basingstoke (pp. 251-272), U. K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Enders, J. (2000). Academic staff in Europe: changing employment and working conditions. In Malcolm Tight (Eds.) Academic work and life: What it is to be an academic, and how this is changing(pp. 7-32). Frankfurt: GEW. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
    Fairweather, J. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401–422
    Fairweather, J. S. and Rhoads, R. A. (1995) Teaching and the faculty role: Enhancing the commitment to instruction in American colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 179-194.
    Feldman, K. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 26, 227–291.
    Flexner A. (1930). Universities: American, English, German. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Glassick E. C., Huber T. M., & Maeroff. I. G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Goldstein, H., Rehbogen, A. (2013). University Engagement and Knowledge Commercialization: an Analysis of Faculty Attitudes. In Baycan T. (Eds.), Knowledge commercialization and valorization in regional economic Development (pp.61-84.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
    Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507–542.
    Hawkins, A. G., & Frohoff, K. M. (2010). Promoting the academy: The challenges of marketing higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1-13.
    Hayes, T. J (2008). Marketing colleges and universities: A services approach. Washington. DC: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.
    Ho, S. H., & Peng, Y. P. (2016). Managing resources and relations in higher education institutions: a framework for understanding performance improvement. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16, 279-300.
    Huber, M.T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic careers. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
    Johnson, B. (1993). Teacher as researcher. Washington, D.C: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.
    Karran, T. (2009). Academic freedom in Europe: Reviewing UNESCO's Recommendation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57 (2), 191 – 215.
    Kasten, K. L. (1984). Tenure and merit pay as rewards for research, teaching, and service at a research university. Journal of Higher Education, 55(4), 500-514.
    Kitagawa, F., & Lightowler, C. (2012). Knowledge exchange: A comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education. Research Evaluation, 22 (1), 1-14
    Kogan M. & Teichler U. J. (2007). Key challenges to the academic profession and its interface with management: some introductory thoughts. In M. Kogan & U. Teichler (Eds.), Key challenges to the academic profession (pp. 9-15) . Kassel, Germany: International Centre for Higher Education Research
    Lay, P. (2004). The interpretation of the Magna Charta Universitatum and its principles. Bologna, Italy: Bononia University Press.
    Leisyte, L. (2015). Changing academic identities in the context of a managerial university – bridging the duality between professions and organizations. In Cummings W. K.& Teichler U. (eds.), The Relevance of Academic Wwork in Comparative Perspective (pp.67-81). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Press.
    Lewin, K. (1935), A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
    Litwin, G. H. & Stringer, R. A., (1968). Motivation and organization climate. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
    Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The Relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.
    Martin, F., Robert, S., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in transformation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
    Masum, A. M., Azad, M. K., & Beh, L. (2015). Determinants of Academics' Job Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from Private Universities in Bangladesh. Plos ONE, 10(2), 1-15.
    Maxwell, Nicholas (2007). From knowledge to wisdom: the need for an academic revolution. London Review of Education, 5, 97-115.
    McCormick, A. C., & Chung-Mei, Zhao.(2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51-57.
    Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in Higher Education, 48(6), 633–668.
    Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). U.S. N news & world report’s college rankings: why do they matter? Change, 31(6), 42-51.
    Mulnix, M. W., Cojanu, K., & Pettine, S. B. (2011). Critical role of the dominant coalition in higher education marketing strategy formulation. Research in Higher Education Journal, 11, 1-10.
    Musselin, C. (2010). The market for academics. New York, NY: Routledge.
    National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer (2012). Survey on innovation and entrepreneurship for the presidents-investors summit. Retrieve form http://center.ncet2.org/images/conference2010/2012summitsurvey4.pdf
    Newman, J. H. (1959). The idea of a university. Garden City, NY: Image Books.
    Parker, M., & Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity—organization, management and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2), 319–338.
    Peers, E. A. (1996). Redbrick university revisited. Liverpool, Chicago: Liverpool University Press.
    Pollitt E. C., Huber T. M., Maeroff I. G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Pollitt, C. & G. Bouckaert (2000), Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
    Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergy. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 283–294.
    Rindova, V., Williamson, I., Petkova, A., & Sever, J. (2005). Being good or being known: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033-1050.
    Roberts, P. W., & G. R. Dowling (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1077-1093.
    Sanberg, P. R., Gharib, M., Harker, P. T., Kaler, E. W., Marchase, R. B., Sands, T. D., Arshadi, N. & Sarkar, S. (2014). Changing the academic culture -valuing patents and commercialization towards tenure and career advancement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,111 (18) 6542- 6547.
    Schreyer, I., & Krause, M. (2016). Pedagogical staff in children’s day care centres in Germany–links between working conditions, job satisfaction, commitment and work-related stress. Early Years: Journal of International Research & Development, 36(2), 132-147.
    Shapiro M. A. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 159-189.
    Shin J. C. (2015). The academic profession and its changing environments. In Teichler U. & Cummings W. K. (Eds), Forming, recruiting and managing the academic profession (pp.11-12). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Press.
    Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously, Change, 31(4), 10-17.
    Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Stanford University (2016). Faculty handbook. Faculty Affairs, Office of the Provost. Retrieved from: http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/
    Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, UK: Heinemann.
    Teichler U., & Cummings W. K.(2015). Forming, Recruiting and Managingthe Academic Profession: A Varied Scene. In Teichler U. & Cummings W. K. (Eds), Forming, recruiting and managing the academic profession (pp.11-12). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Press.
    Teichler U., Arimoto A., & Cummings W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
    The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2001). The carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation.
    Thorens, J. (2006). Liberties, freedom and autonomy: a few reflections on academia’s estate. Higher Education Policy, 19 (1), 87–110.
    Trow, M. A. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Berkeley, Calif.: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
    Trow, M. A. (2000). From mass higher education to universal Access: The American advantage. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/publications/docs/PP.Trow.MassHE.1.00.pdf
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1997). Recommendation concerning the status of higher education teaching personnel. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
    University of Bristol (2016a). Academic staff career pathways. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media
    University of Bristol (2016b). Defining excellence - guidance on the application of the promotion criteria. Retrieved from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/hr/policies/promotion
    Von Humboldt, W. (1970). On the spirit and organizational framework of intellectual institutions in Berlin, Minerva, 8(2), 242–250.
    Wernerfelt B. (1984). A Resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
    Xu, F., & Shen, J. (2007). Research on job satisfaction of elementary and high school teachers and strategies to increase job satisfaction. Chinese Education & Society, 40(5), 86-96.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    教育行政與政策研究所
    104171005
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104171005
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[教育行政與政策研究所 ] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    100501.pdf3470KbAdobe PDF0檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋