東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Current use and importance of E. L. ...

Lenthe, Scott A.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Current use and importance of E. L. Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Current use and importance of E. L. Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers./
作者:	Lenthe, Scott A.
面頁冊數:	197 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: A, page: 0114.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-01A.
標題:	Education, Higher. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3203334
ISBN:	9780542518133

Current use and importance of E. L. Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers.
Lenthe, Scott A.

Current use and importance of E. L. Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers. - 197 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: A, page: 0114.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, 2006.

A study that examines the extent to which the domains of scholarship described by Earnest Boyer are used and perceived important for decision-making in determining faculty rewards at community colleges. Boyer's four scholarship domains include discovery, integration, application, and teaching. Rewards were limited to granting of annual salary merit pay, continuing contracts or tenure, and/or promotion in rank. Data were collected through a web-based national survey of 117 chief academic officers (CAOs). The use of Boyer's domains of scholarship, and faculty work directly associated with teaching, was determined by analysis of percentages CAOs indicated each activity was rewarded. Perceptions of the importance of faculty scholarship for determining rewards was analyzed through Likert scale ratings of CAOs responses for each of Boyer's scholarship domains and by a single global scholarship value inclusive of all four domains. To determine if resources available to larger colleges or objectives established by accrediting regions influence CAOs perceptions, the global scholarship value was used to analyze the overall importance of scholarship based on sizes of institutions and by accrediting agency membership. CAOs indicated that faculty activities directly related to teaching is rewarded more than any domain of scholarship. Concerning Boyer's four domains, the scholarship of teaching is rewarded the most and perceived as most important; followed by the scholarships of application and integration. CAOs reported that the scholarship of discovery is rarely rewarded and is perceived as having little importance. These results support the view that community colleges are on the teaching and practice vs. research end of the higher education hierarchy when determining faculty rewards. Importance of scholarship ratings generally increase with the size of colleges however the relationship is not statistically significant. When the scholarship of discovery is removed from the global scholarship value significant differences in importance ratings are noticeable between accrediting agencies. Academic leaders influence policy affecting faculty responsibilities, evaluation, and rewards at community colleges. Literature indicates that there are several advantages to using scholarship-based evaluation and reward systems. This study shows that as CAOs perceptions of the importance of scholarship increases, so does the use of scholarship for rewarding faculty.

ISBN: 9780542518133Subjects--Topical Terms:

543175
Education, Higher.

Current use and importance of E. L. Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers.
LDR:03456nmm 2200277 4500 001 1825453
005 20061211074634.5
008 130610s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542518133
035 $a (UnM)AAI3203334
035 $a AAI3203334
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Lenthe, Scott A. $3 1914459
245 1 0 $a Current use and importance of E. L. Boyer's four domains of scholarship for decisions concerning faculty rewards at community colleges: Perceptions of chief academic officers.
300 $a 197 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: A, page: 0114.
500 $a Adviser: Fred Dressel.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Ohio University, 2006.
520 $a A study that examines the extent to which the domains of scholarship described by Earnest Boyer are used and perceived important for decision-making in determining faculty rewards at community colleges. Boyer's four scholarship domains include discovery, integration, application, and teaching. Rewards were limited to granting of annual salary merit pay, continuing contracts or tenure, and/or promotion in rank. Data were collected through a web-based national survey of 117 chief academic officers (CAOs). The use of Boyer's domains of scholarship, and faculty work directly associated with teaching, was determined by analysis of percentages CAOs indicated each activity was rewarded. Perceptions of the importance of faculty scholarship for determining rewards was analyzed through Likert scale ratings of CAOs responses for each of Boyer's scholarship domains and by a single global scholarship value inclusive of all four domains. To determine if resources available to larger colleges or objectives established by accrediting regions influence CAOs perceptions, the global scholarship value was used to analyze the overall importance of scholarship based on sizes of institutions and by accrediting agency membership. CAOs indicated that faculty activities directly related to teaching is rewarded more than any domain of scholarship. Concerning Boyer's four domains, the scholarship of teaching is rewarded the most and perceived as most important; followed by the scholarships of application and integration. CAOs reported that the scholarship of discovery is rarely rewarded and is perceived as having little importance. These results support the view that community colleges are on the teaching and practice vs. research end of the higher education hierarchy when determining faculty rewards. Importance of scholarship ratings generally increase with the size of colleges however the relationship is not statistically significant. When the scholarship of discovery is removed from the global scholarship value significant differences in importance ratings are noticeable between accrediting agencies. Academic leaders influence policy affecting faculty responsibilities, evaluation, and rewards at community colleges. Literature indicates that there are several advantages to using scholarship-based evaluation and reward systems. This study shows that as CAOs perceptions of the importance of scholarship increases, so does the use of scholarship for rewarding faculty.
590 $a School code: 0167.
650 4 $a Education, Higher. $3 543175
650 4 $a Education, Community College. $3 1018008
690 $a 0745
690 $a 0275
710 2 0 $a Ohio University. $3 626637
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-01A.
790 1 0 $a Dressel, Fred, $e advisor
790 $a 0167
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3203334