Service leadership education for university students in Hong Kong: qualitative evaluation

References

1. Brown P, Hesketh A. The mismanagement of talent: employability and jobs in the knowledge economy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269532.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

2. Seltzer K, Bentley T. The creative age: knowledge and skills for the new economy. London: Demos, 1999.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Shek DT, Yu L, Ma CM, Sun RC, Liu TT. Development of a credit-bearing service leadership subject for university students in Hong Kong. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2013;25:353–61.10.1515/ijamh-2013-0033Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Shek DT. Adolescent developmental issues in Hong Kong: relevance to positive youth development programs in Hong Kong. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2006;18:341–54.10.1515/IJAMH.2006.18.3.341Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Shek DT, Ma CM, Lin L. The Chinese adolescent materialism scale: psychometric properties and normative profiles. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2014;13:285–95.10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0314Suche in Google Scholar

6. Chung P. Hong Kong Institute of Service Leadership and Management (SLAM) curriculum framework. Unpublished manuscript. 2011.Suche in Google Scholar

7. Royse D, Thyer BA, Padgett DK. Program evaluation: an introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010.Suche in Google Scholar

8. Holden DJ, Zimmerman MA, editors. A practical guide to program evaluation planning: theory and case examples. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.Suche in Google Scholar

9. Fitpatrick J, Sanders J, Worthen B. Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon, 2004.Suche in Google Scholar

10. Posavac EJ. Program evaluation: methods and case studies, 8th ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, 2011.Suche in Google Scholar

11. Marsh HW. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In: Perry RP, Smart JC, editors. The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: an evidence-based perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007:319–83.Suche in Google Scholar

12. Wachtel HK. Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review. Assess Eval High Educ 1998;23:191–212.10.1080/0260293980230207Suche in Google Scholar

13. Zhao J, Gallant DJ. Student evaluation of instruction in higher education: exploring issues of validity and reliability. Assess Eval High Educ 2012;37:227–35.10.1080/02602938.2010.523819Suche in Google Scholar

14. Cohen PA. Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: a meta-analysis of findings. Res High Educ 1980;13:321–41.10.1007/BF00976252Suche in Google Scholar

15. Marsh HW, Roche L. The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. Am Educ Res J 1993;30:217–51.10.3102/00028312030001217Suche in Google Scholar

16. Aleamoni LM. Student ratings of instruction. In: Millman J, editor. Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981:110–45.Suche in Google Scholar

17. Fauth B, Decristan J, Rieser S, Klieme E, Büttner G. Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learn Instr 2014;29:1–9.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001Suche in Google Scholar

18. Cohen PA. Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: a meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Rev Educ Res 1981;51:281–309.10.3102/00346543051003281Suche in Google Scholar

19. Stehle S, Spinath B, Kadmon M. Measuring teaching effectiveness: correspondence between students’ evaluations of teaching and different measures of student learning. Res High Educ 2012;53:888–904.10.1007/s11162-012-9260-9Suche in Google Scholar

20. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.Suche in Google Scholar

21. Rao V, Woolcock M. Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in program evaluation. In: Bourguignon F, Silva LP, editors. The impact of economic policies on poverty and income distribution: evaluation techniques and tools. Washington, DC: World Bank, Oxford University Press, 2003:165–90.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Sale JE, Lohfeld LH, Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual Quant 2002;36:43–53.10.1023/A:1014301607592Suche in Google Scholar

23. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, Cabinet Office, 2003.Suche in Google Scholar

24. Merriam SB. Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002.Suche in Google Scholar

25. Anastas JW. Quality in qualitative evaluation: issues and possible answers. Res Social Work Prac 2004;14:57–65.10.1177/1049731503257870Suche in Google Scholar

26. Polkinghorne DE. Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. J Couns Psychol 2005;52:137–45.10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137Suche in Google Scholar

27. Alvesson M, Sköldberg K. Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications; 2009.Suche in Google Scholar

28. Richardson J, Grose J. The use of descriptive words and metaphor in patient and carer experience of palliative day care: secondary analysis of a qualitative study. Open Nurs J 2009;3:18–24.10.2174/1874434600903010018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

29. Shek DT, Yu L, Ma CM. The students were happy, but did they change positively? Int J Disabil Human Dev 2014;13:505–11.10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0348Suche in Google Scholar

30. Shek DT, Lin L, Liu TT. Service leadership edcuation for university students in Hong Kong: Subjective outcome evaluation. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2014;13:513–21.Suche in Google Scholar

31. Shek DT, Lin L, Liu TT, Law MY. Process evaluation of a pilot subject on service leadership for university students in Hong Kong. Int J Disabil Human Dev, In press.Suche in Google Scholar

32. Shek DT, Ng CS, Tsui PF. Qualitative evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: findings based on focus groups. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2010;9:307–13.10.1515/IJDHD.2010.046Suche in Google Scholar

33. Shek DT, Sun RC. Qualitative evaluation of Project P.A.T.H.S.: an integration of findings based on program participants. ScientificWorldJournal 2012, Article ID 528483, p. 12.10.1100/2012/528483Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

34. Shek DT, Sun RC. Qualitative evaluation of a positive youth development course in a university setting in Hong Kong. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2012;11:243–48.Suche in Google Scholar

35. Shek DT, Law MY. Evaluation of a subject on leadership and intrapersonal development: views of the students based on qualitative evaluation. Int J Disabil Human Dev 2014;13:435–41.Suche in Google Scholar

36. Mezirow J. How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In: Mezirow J, editor. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1990:1–20.Suche in Google Scholar

37. Brockbank A, McGill I. Facilitating reflective learning in higher education, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar

38. Mezirow J. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1991.Suche in Google Scholar

39. Seibert KW, Daudelin MW. The role of reflection in managerial learning: theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum, 1999.Suche in Google Scholar

40. Shek DT, Tang V, Han XY. Quality of qualitative evaluation studies in the social work literature: evidence that constitutes a wakeup call. Res Soc Work Pract 2005;15:180–94.10.1177/1049731504271603Suche in Google Scholar

41. Christensen GL, Olson JC. Mapping consumers’ mental models with ZMET. Psychol Market 2002;19:477–501.10.1002/mar.10021Suche in Google Scholar