State policies to improve undergraduate teaching: Administrator and faculty responses

Journal of Higher Education

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 3-25

  Colbeck, Carol L ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036386194     PISSN: 00221546     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2002.11777128     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Banta, T. W. (Ed.) (1986). Performance funding in higher education: A critical analysis of Tennessee's experience. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
2. Banta, T. W., Rudolph, L. B., Van Dyke, J., & Fisher, H. S. (1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 23-45.
3. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203.
5. Burke, J. C., & Serban, A. M. (1998). Performance funding for public higher education: Fad or trend? New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Cage, M. (1995, January 20). Regulating faculty workloads. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A30, A33.
7. Calhoun, W. H. (1986). Measuring achievement in the major field. In T. W. Banta (Ed.), Performance funding in higher education: A critical analysis of Tennessee's experience (pp. 73-83). Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
8. Carnevale, A. P., Johnson, N. C., & Edwards, A. R. (1998, April 10). Performance-based appropriations: Fad or wave of the future? Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B6.
9. Ewell, P. (1986). Performance funding and institutional response: Lessons from the Tennessee experience. In T. Banta (Ed.), Performance funding in higher education: A critical anaIysis of Tennessee's experience (pp. 105-120). Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
10. Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11. Frost, S.H., Hearn, J. C., & Marine, G. M. (1997). State policy and the public research university: A case study of manifest and latent tensions. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 363-397.
12. Haworth, K. (1996, October 11). Florida regents approve post-tenure reviews for all professors. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A15.
13. Humphreys, W. L. (1986). Measuring achievement in general education. In T. W. Banta (Ed.), Performance funding in higher education: A critical analysis of Tennessee's experience (pp. 61-71). Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
14. Jones, D. P., & Ewell, P. (1993). The effect of state policy on undergraduate education: State policy and college learning. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
15. Marcus, L. R. (1997). Restructuring state higher education governance patterns. Review of Higher Education, 20, 399-418.
16. McDonnell, L. (1991). Ideas and values in implementation analysis: The case of teacher policy. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 241-258). Albany: State University of New York Press.
17. McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
18. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
19. Mills, M. (1998). From coordinating board to campus: Implementation of a policy mandate on remedial education. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 672-697.
20. Ohio Board of Regents. (1994). Report of the Regents' Advisory Committee on faculty workload standards and guidelines. Columbus, OH: Ohio Board of Regents.
21. Ohio Board of Regents. (1995). Report of the Regents' Advisory Committee on faculty workload standards and guidelines. Columbus, OH: Ohio Board of Regents.
22. Presley, J. B., & Engelbride, E. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivity in the research university. Review of Higher Education, 22, 17-37.
23. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
24. Ruscio, K. P. (1987). Many sectors, many professions. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National disciplinary and institutional settings. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25. Shaw, K. M. (1997). Remedial education as ideological battleground: Emerging remedial education policies in the community college. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 284-296.
26. Weathersley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
27. Youngstown State University. (1994, December). YSU 2000: A vision for a premier metropolitan university. Youngstown State University, Office of the President.