Chất lượng giảng viên các trường đại học công lập trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội

Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 75-109. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

60. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005), “On making determinations of quality in teaching”, Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213.

61. Ferguson, C., and Gilpin, G. (2009). Wage Frictions and Teacher Quality: An Empirical Analysis of Differential Effects across Subject Areas.

62. Frederick B. J. A. Ngala and Stephen O. Odebero (2010), “Teachers’ perceptions of staff development programmes as it relates to teachers’ effectiveness: A study of rural primary schools in Kenya”, Educational Research and Review, Vol.5 (1), pp.001-009.

63. Ganyaupfu EM (2013), Teaching methods and students’ academic performance. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. Invent. 2 (9): 29-35

64. Gennip, H. van & Vrieze, G. (2008), Wat is de ideale leraar? Studie naar vakkennis interventie en persoon. Nijmegen: ITS [What is the ideal teacher? Study on subject knowledge, intervention and person

65. Glewwe, P., Ilias, N., and Kremer, M. (2010), “Teacher Incentives,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2 (3), 205-27.

66. Grangeat, M., & Gray, P. (2007). Factors influencing teachers’ professional competence development. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 59(4), 485–501.

67. Groot, W., & van den Brink, H. M. (1999). Job satisfaction of older workers. International Journal of Manpower, 20(6), 343-360.

68. Hair.JF, WC Black, BJ Babin, RE Anderson, RL Tatham (1998 ),

Multivariate data analysis, NY: Prentice Hall International

69. Hamonangan Tambunan (2014), “Factors Affecting Teachers’ Competence in the Field of Information Technology”, International Education Studies; Vol. 7, No. 12

70. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., O’Brien, D.M., Rivkin, S.G. (2005). “The market for teacher quality”. Working Paper 11154. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (February)

71. Hanushek và Rivkin (2004), “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers”, The Journal or Human Resources, 39, 2 (Spring 2004)

72. Hawkins, H.L.& Overbaugh, B.L. (1988). The interface between facilities and learning. Council of Educational Facility Planners Journal, 26, 4-7

73. Hoxby, C. (1996), “How teachers unions affect education production,''

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(4), 671-718

74. Hughes, T. P. (2004). Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

75. Isabel Cađadas Osinski and Miguel Hernándezb (2013), “Study of the qualities of a good University lecturer of Health Sciences”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89 ( 2013 ) 342 – 350.

76. Kaiser, L. (2002). Job satisfaction: a comparison of standard, non-standard and self employed patterns across Europe with a special note to the gender/job paradox. EPAG Working Paper 27, Colchester: University of Essex.

77. Kent V. Rondeau and Terry H. Wagary (2001), “Impact of human resource management practices on nursing home performance”, Health Services Management Research 14, 192 – 202

78. Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T., & Borman, G. (2004),“Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County”, Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (4), 54–78

79. Kingdon, G. G. and Teal, F. (2010), “Teacher Union, teacher pay, and student performance in India: A pupil fixed effects approach”, Journal of Development Economics, 91, 278-288

80. Knippenberg, D., Dick, R. & Tavares, S, (2007), “Social identity and social exchange: Identification, support, and withdrawal from the job”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume. 37. Pages. 457–477.

81. Lazear, E. (2003), Teacher Incentives, Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 179-214.

82. Lauri, B,. Benson, G and Cheney, S. (1996), The top ten trends, In training and development,11,28-42.

83. Lestari, A. S., & Dirga. (2014), Determinan Pengembangan Karier Dosen Pada Perguruan Tinggi DiSamarinda (Disertation not be published), Makassar: Pascasarjana Universitas Hasanuddin.

84. Liu, S. and Liu, N.C. (2005), “Classification of Chinese higher education institutions (in Chinese)”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 40-4

85. Lucky and Yusoff (2015), “Evidence on teaching qualifications, characteristics, competence and lecturer performance in higher institutions in Nigeria”, International Journal of Management in Education, Volume 9, Issue 2

86. Lyons, J.B. (2001) Do School Facilities Really Impact a Child’s Education? Retrieved from http: // www.coe.uga.edu/ sdpl/ articlesandpapers/ lyons.html

87. Moguerou, P. (2002). Job satisfaction among US Ph.D. graduates: The effects of gender and employment sector. Labor and Demography, 0204002, EconWPA

88. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., and Barber, M. (2010), How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company.

89. Mpokosa, C., Ndaruhutse, S., McBride, C., Nock, S., and Penson, J. (2008), Managing teachers.The centrality of teacher management to quality education. Lessons from developing countries.Retrieved from

90. Multi Sukrapi (2014), “The Relationship between Professional Competence and Work Motivation with the Elementary School Teacher Performance”, Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799) Volume 02 – Issue 05, October 2014

91. Mulyasa E. (2007), Standar Kompetensi dan Sertifikasi Guru. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya 142, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2011-0062

92. Muralidharan, K. and Sundararaman, V. (2011), “Teacher Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from India”, Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39-77.

93. Musiige G and Maassen P (2015) “Faculty Perceptions of the Factors that Influence Research Productivity at Makerere University”. In: N Cloete, P Maassen and T Bailey (eds), Knowledge Production and Contradictory Functions in African Higher Education. Cape Town: African Minds.

94. Musset, P. (2010). Initial Teacher Education and Continuing Training. Policies in a Comparative Perspective: Current Practice in OECD Countries and a literature Review on Potential effects. OECD Education Working Paper, No 48.Paris: OECD Publishing.

95. Muslim Amin, Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid, Richard Daverson Andrew Selemani, (2014), “The impact of human resource management practices on performance: Evidence from a Public University”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 26 Issue: 2, pp.125

96. Mwesiga, A. (2010). The impact of training on employee work performance behaviour: A case study of Government Aided secondary schools in Inbanda District, Uganda. Unpublished M. A. Thesis.

97. Nancy Quansah (2013), The impact of human resource management practices on organizational performance: a case study of some selected rural banks, masters of business administration, College of art and Social Sciences

98. Nunnally, J. (1978), Psycometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill.

99. Ojiemhenkele, A. E. (2014). In-service Training: A panacea for teachers’ Job effectiveness and productivity. Studies in education. 14 (1).

100. O’Neill, D. (2000). The impact of school facilities on student achievement, behavior, attendance, Unpublished dissertation. College Station, TX: Texas A and M University

101. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], (2010), Strong performers and successful reformers in education: lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

102. Overbaugh, B.L. (1990). School Facilities: The Relationship of the Physical Environment to Teacher Professionalism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.

103. Oyitso, M. &Olomukoro C. O. (2012), Training and Retraining Nigerian workers to enhance task performance, Interdisciplinary Journal of contemporary research in Business, 4(1).

104. Pe´rez López, S., Manuel Montes Peón, J., & José Vazquez Ordás, C. (2006), “Human Resources Management as a determining factor in Organizational learning”, Management Learning, 37 (2), pp. 215 -239.

105. Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O. & Zhang, Z (2011), “Psychological Capital and Employee Performance: A Latent Growth Modelling Approach”. Personnel Psychology, Volume. 64. Issue. 2. Pages. 287-315,.

106. Putter-Smits, L. G. A., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2013), “Mapping context-based learning environments: The construction of an instrument”. Learning Environments Research, 16 (3), 437-462.

107. Philip G. Altbach, Liz Reisberg and Laura E. Rumbley (2009), “Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

108. Ramirez, C., Schau, C., & Emmioğlu, E. (2012), "The importance of attitudes in statistics education”, Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2),

109. Richard, L.A. (2012), Learning to Teach (19th ed.), New York: McGraw- Hills Companies, Inc.

110. Rogers , Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, , W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006), “Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement”, Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333-352.

111. Rotherham, A. J., & Mead, S. (2003), Teacher quality: Beyond no child left behind. A response to Kaplan and Owings (2002), NASSP Bulletin, 87(635), 65-76.

112. Ruth Naylor and Yusuf Sayed (2014), Teacher quality: evidence review, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canberra

113. Samsudin, N.-H. (2006), Syllables Study for the Development of Malay Speech Synthesizer, Masters Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia

114. Schneider, M. (2003). Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities”, available at: http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/teachersurvey.pdf

115. Strong, M. (2012), “What do we mean by teacher quality? In: M. Strong (Ed), The highly qualified teacher: what is teacher quality and how do we measure it?”, Teachers College, Columbia University, pp. 12–17.

116. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.), New York: HarperCollins.

117. Tatto, M. T., Ingvarson, L., Schwille, J., Peck, R., Senk, S.L., and Rowley, G. (2008), Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS- M): policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary

mathematics. Conceptual framework.International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.

118. Tempelaar, D. T., Schim van der Loeff, S., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007), “A structural equation model analyzing the relationship of students’ attitudes toward statistics, prior reasoning abilities and course performance”, Statistics Education Research Journal, 6 (2), 78–102.

119. Vegas, E., Ganimian, A., and Jaimovich, A. (2012), Learning from the best: improving learning through effective teacher policies. World Bank, Washington, DC.

120. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H. & Tetrick, L. E. “The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader– member exchange”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Volume. 87. Pages. 590– 598, 2002.

121. World Bank. (2012), System Approach for Better Education Results (SABER): what matters most in teacher policies? A framework for building a more effective teaching profession. Washington, DC, World Bank.

122. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W. B. “Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Volume. 82. Pages. 183−200, 2009a

123. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W. B. “Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Volume. 74. Pages. 235−244, 2009b.

124. Zimbardo PG and Leippe MR (1991), The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

125. Zimprich, D. (2012), “Attitudes toward statistics among Swiss psychology students”, Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71(3), 149–155.

PHỤ LỤC 1

PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT VỀ CÁC NHÂN TỐ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN CHẤT LƯỢNG GIẢNG VIÊN CÁC TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC CÔNG LẬP

TRÊN ĐỊA BÀN HÀ NỘI

Kính chào quý Thầy/Cô!

Hiện nay, tôi đang thực hiện nghiên cứu về “các nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chất lượng giảng viên các trường đại học công lập trên địa bàn thành phố Hà Nội”. Để đạt được mục đích nghiên cứu, tôi rất mong nhận được câu trả lời của quý Thầy/Cô. Kết quả nghiên cứu sẽ được sử dụng cho việc hiểu nhiều hơn các nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chất lượng giảng viên trong giai đoạn hiện nay. Câu trả lời chân thật của quý Thầy/Cô sẽ thực sự có ý nghĩa đối với tôi. Tất cả những thông tin quý Thầy/Cô cung cấp sẽ chỉ được sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu. Rất mong quý Thầy/Cô vui lòng cộng tác!

Mọi ý kiến bổ sung, thắc mắc, quý Thầy/Cô vui lòng liên hệ:

NCS. Đinh Thị Trâm – Giảng viên trường Đại học Lao động – Xã hội. SĐT: 0912871924

Xin trân trọng cảm ơn!

Phần I: Thông tin chung

Xin vui lòng cung cấp những thông tin chung về quý Thầy/Cô:

1. Họ và tên (có thể không cần ghi):

2. Giới tính: : □1. Nữ □2. Nam

3. Thâm niên công tác:

□1. Dưới 5 năm □ 3. Từ 10 năm đến dưới 15 năm

□2. Từ 5 năm đến dưới10 năm □4. Từ 15 năm trở lên

4. Chức danh nghề nghiệp:

□1. Giảng viên □2. Giảng viên chính □3. Giảng viên cao cấp

5. Vị trí công tác:

□1. Giảng viên □2. Trưởng/phó khoa □3. Trưởng/ Phó Bộ môn 6. Đơn vị công tác:............................

Phần II: Đánh giá về chất lượng giảng viên

Xin Quý Thầy/Cô cho biết đánh giá của mình về chất lượng giảng viên của đơn vị mà Thầy/Cô công tác chính thức bằng cách “√” vào những miêu tả rõ nhất mà Quý Thầy/Cô đồng ý theo quy ước sau:

(1) Dưới trung bình; (2) Trung bình; (3) Khá; (4) Tốt; (5) Rất tốt.

Mã hóa

Phẩm chất nghề nghiệp (PC)	1	2	3	4	5
PC1	Phẩm chất chính trị	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
PC2	Phẩm chất đạo đức	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
PC3	Lối sống, tác phong làm việc	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
	Năng lực CMNV (CM)	1	2	3	4	5
CM1	Trình độ chuyên môn	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM2	Kỹ năng nghiệp vụ sư phạm	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM3	Khả năng ngoại ngữ	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM4	Khả năng ứng dụng CNTT	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM5	Thiết kế và tổ chức dạy học	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM6	Đánh giá kết quả dạy học	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM7	Tham gia phát triển chương trình đào tạo	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
CM8	Tư vấn, hỗ trợ sinh viên	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
	Năng lực NCKH (KH)	1	2	3	4	5
KH1	Số lượng các đề tài, dự án các cấp tham gia	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
KH2	Số lượng các ấn phẩm, các bài báo đăng trên các tạp chí uy tín	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
KH3	Số lượng sách, giáo trình, bài giảng tham gia biên soạn phục vụ cho giảng dạy, nghiên cứu	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
KH4	Hướng dẫn sinh viên, học viên nghiên cứu	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
	Xây dựng môi trường giáo dục dân chủ (MT)	1	2	3	4	5
MT1	Xây dựng và thực hiện quy chế dân chủ cơ sở	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
MT2	Mức độ đóng góp ý kiến trong việc xây dựng các chế độ, chính sách cho nhà trường	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
MT3	Tạo được môi trường học tập và nghiên cứu thân thiện	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
	Năng lực phát triển quan hệ xã hội (QH)	1	2	3	4	5
QH1	Mối quan hệ với các đồng nghiệp	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
QH2	Mối quan hệ với cấp trên	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
QH3	Mối quan hệ với các cơ sở đào tạo khác	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5
QH4	Mối quan hệ với doanh nghiệp	□1	□2	□3	□4	□5