作业帮英语翻译EVALUATION OBJECTS,PURPOSES,AND STANDARDSIt is evident t
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：拍题作业网作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/04/27 18:15:41
英语翻译
EVALUATION OBJECTS,PURPOSES,AND STANDARDS
It is evident that evaluation has become an important policy lever during the current wave of accountability in higher education.Most of the previous conceptual and empirical work on administrative evaluation in education has occurred in K–12 settings.The rationale has strong parallels.A necessary step in developing an evaluation system for higher education administrators is to delineate the objects,purposes,and standards that will be used.Glasman and Heck (1996) argue that as educational goals and evaluation purposes can change over time with changing political demands,so can the objects of evaluation,the purposes,and the evaluation standards that are adopted.
In higher education,various objects can be evaluated including student learning,educational programs,institutional productivity,and the performance of personnel (e.g.,faculty teaching,service,and research).With respect to administrators more specifically,the objects of evaluation could include attitudes,behavior,decision making,performance,or effectiveness.In fact,as Glasman and Heck (1996) note,it is possible to adopt several different evaluation perspectives toward administrators (e.g.,role-based,outcome-based,standards-based,structure-based).For example,outcomes-based evaluation might focus on the products produced or level of productivity under direction of the administrator.A role-based evaluation approach would focus on the administrator’s role and how well it is fulfilled.
Purposes of evaluation concern questions such as whose work is to be evaluated,why should the evaluation be done,what is to be the focus,who will use the findings,and what decisions will be made (Stufflebeam and Nevo,1993).In the past,evaluation purposes for administrators often have been poorly articulated.Typical purposes include determining competence,improving performance,establishing accountability,and making decisions about salary augmentation,promotion,reassignment,and dismissal (Glasman and Heck,1996).Unfortunately,however,little empirical research exists on actual administrator evaluation practices,so little is known about the purposes,nature,and quality of the procedures.
EVALUATION OBJECTS,PURPOSES,AND STANDARDS
It is evident that evaluation has become an important policy lever during the current wave of accountability in higher education.Most of the previous conceptual and empirical work on administrative evaluation in education has occurred in K–12 settings.The rationale has strong parallels.A necessary step in developing an evaluation system for higher education administrators is to delineate the objects,purposes,and standards that will be used.Glasman and Heck (1996) argue that as educational goals and evaluation purposes can change over time with changing political demands,so can the objects of evaluation,the purposes,and the evaluation standards that are adopted.
In higher education,various objects can be evaluated including student learning,educational programs,institutional productivity,and the performance of personnel (e.g.,faculty teaching,service,and research).With respect to administrators more specifically,the objects of evaluation could include attitudes,behavior,decision making,performance,or effectiveness.In fact,as Glasman and Heck (1996) note,it is possible to adopt several different evaluation perspectives toward administrators (e.g.,role-based,outcome-based,standards-based,structure-based).For example,outcomes-based evaluation might focus on the products produced or level of productivity under direction of the administrator.A role-based evaluation approach would focus on the administrator’s role and how well it is fulfilled.
Purposes of evaluation concern questions such as whose work is to be evaluated,why should the evaluation be done,what is to be the focus,who will use the findings,and what decisions will be made (Stufflebeam and Nevo,1993).In the past,evaluation purposes for administrators often have been poorly articulated.Typical purposes include determining competence,improving performance,establishing accountability,and making decisions about salary augmentation,promotion,reassignment,and dismissal (Glasman and Heck,1996).Unfortunately,however,little empirical research exists on actual administrator evaluation practices,so little is known about the purposes,nature,and quality of the procedures.
目的和标准很明显,已经成为评价过程中的问责制高等教育浪潮的一项重要政策杠杆.Most of the previous conceptual and empirical work on administrative evaluation in education has occurred in K–12 settings.以前的概念和经验在教育管理评价工作的大部分发生在K - 12的设置.The rationale has strong parallels.具有强大的理由相似之处.A necessary step in developing an evaluation system for higher education administrators is to delineate the objects,purposes,and standards that will be used.为了发展一个高等教育管理评价体系的一个必要步骤是划定的对象,用途,而且将使用的标准.Glasman and Heck (1996) argue that as educational goals and evaluation purposes can change over time with changing political demands,so can the objects of evaluation,the purposes,and the evaluation standards that are adopted.In higher education,various objects can be evaluated including student learning,educational programs,institutional productivity,and the performance of personnel (eg,faculty teaching,service,and research).格拉斯曼和Heck（1996）认为,作为教育的目标和评价的目的可以随时间变化不断变化的政治要求,因此可以评价的对象,目的,评估所采用的标准.在高等教育中,各种物体可以评价包括学生的学习,教育计划,体制生产率和人员的表现（例如,教师教学,服务和研究）.With respect to administrators more specifically,the objects of evaluation could include attitudes,behavior,decision making,performance,or effectiveness.关于管理人员更具体,评价的对象可以包括态度,行为,决策,执行,或有效性.In fact,as Glasman and Heck (1996) note,it is possible to adopt several different evaluation perspectives toward administrators (eg,role-based,outcome-based,standards-based,structure-based).事实上,格拉斯曼和Heck（1996）,有可能采取几种不同的评价对管理人员的观点（例如,基于角色的成果为基础的,基于标准的结构为基础）.For example,outcomes-based evaluation might focus on the products produced or level of productivity under direction of the administrator.例如,成果为基础的评估可能集中于生产的产品或根据管理员的指示生产力水平.A role-based evaluation approach would focus on the administrator's role and how well it is fulfilled.Purposes of evaluation concern questions such as whose work is to be evaluated,why should the evaluation be done,what is to be the focus,who will use the findings,and what decisions will be made (Stufflebeam and Nevo,1993).基于角色的评价方法,将侧重于管理员的作用,以及它是如何完成.他们的工作,如关心的问题的评价目的是要评估,为什么要评估做,什么是重点,谁使用调查结果,以及将做出决定（斯塔弗尔比姆和尼沃,1993）.In the past,evaluation purposes for administrators often have been poorly articulated.在过去,往往已不善的管理评估.Typical purposes include determining competence,improving performance,establishing accountability,and making decisions about salary augmentation,promotion,reassignment,and dismissal (Glasman and Heck,1996).典型用途包括：确定能力,提高了性能,建立问责制,对工资,使增强,晋升,调动的决定,并解雇（格拉斯曼和Heck,1996）.Unfortunately,however,little empirical research exists on actual administrator evaluation practices,so little is known about the purposes,nature,and quality of the procedures.然而不幸的是,小的实证研究上存在的实际管理人评价办法,所以知之甚少的目的,性质和程序的质量.
这是每句对每句的翻译,别忘了给设置为最佳答案,早晨怪冷的.
这是每句对每句的翻译,别忘了给设置为最佳答案,早晨怪冷的.