Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/154198
|
| Title: | 從利益相關者的角度探索中國營利性民辦大學：以上海2所高校為例
Exploring China's for-profit private universities from a stakeholder perspective: Two cases from Shanghai |
| Authors: | 林綿
Lin, Mian |
| Contributors: | 劉嘉慧
侯永琪
Lau, Maggie
Hou, Angela
林綿
Lin, Mian |
| Keywords: | 分類管理
營利性大學
利益相關者理論
非營利性大學
私立高等教育
Classification management
For-profit university
stakeholder theory
non-profit university
private higher education |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-11-01 11:01:25 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近二十年來，中國高等教育經歷了一個快速發展的階段。根據《2020 年全國教育事業發展統計公報》，中國共有普通高校 2738 所。高等教育在校生總數達到 4183 萬人，高等教育毛入學率為 54.4%。在這種快速擴張的驅動下，高等教育系統的分類管理成為一個全球性的問題，在中國尤為迫切，並日益成為理論研究和政策實踐的重要課題。對高校進行分類管理和評估，促進高校分類發展，是高等教育從大眾化向普及化發展的重要特徵。不同的分類發展標準和方向，反映了不同的價值取向、利益偏好和訴求。影響高校分類的主要力量包括政府、高校自身、教育教學評估中心等。它們試圖通過構建相應的分類標準體系和評價結果來引導和影響高校的發展。當政府、高校、社會等多元價值主體同時參與到分類管理的博弈中時，不同價值主體的參與會引發衝突和矛盾。從微觀角度看，對於營利性民辦高校而言，是否尊重所有利益相關者的合理利益訴求，尤其是作為高校最重要利益相關者的教師和學生。本研究旨在探討營利性民辦高校實施分類管理政策對教師和學生的影響。作為高校最重要的利益相關者，他們的利益訴求是否得到滿足，探究他們選擇營利性 民辦大學性別化的動因等問題，將成為檢驗高等教育改革成敗的關鍵。同時，通過對營利性民辦高校師生訴求的分析，可以更好地平衡各利益相關者之間的關係，滿足公眾的個性化需求，促進 “公益性 ”與 “營利性 ”的平衡。本定性研究以利益相關者理論為基础，通過上海兩所不同營利性大學的16名學生參與者、10名教師參與者和2名高級管理人員，瞭解他們選擇營利性大學的動機，探討其變化和影響，比較學生和教師的體驗和感受，從微觀角度分析營利性民辦大學是否滿足了他們的需求。結果表明，教師和學生都缺乏對盈利性的認識。相比之下，教師對營利性私立大學的看法不一，但 “營利性 ”並不足以阻止學生選擇入讀大學，也不足以阻止教師選擇在大學工作。學生的學習動機是多種因素共同作用的結果。分類管理政策實施後，營利性民辦高校產生的變化主要體現在高校治理、學生學業體驗和教師工作體驗三個方面。從利益相關者的訴求來看，營利性民辦高校教師的利益訴求是多元化的，最主要的利益訴求集中在歸屬感和身份認同上，其次是自我價值實現不足和工資待遇較低。另一方面，學生群體則格外重視知識的轉化和實用性，關注個人能力的培養和個人價值的提升。本研究的貢獻在於，通過對學生和教師的半結構式訪談，對利益相關者理論的文獻進行了梳理。這也帶來了一些討論，營利性私立大學的出現強化了高等教育市場不平等的存在，雖然營利性私立大學強調發展特色教育在一定程度上符合學生對知識轉型的興趣，但也暴露出品質保證的問題，同時，營利性私立大學的發展也離不開政府政策的支持，尤其是教師隊伍的支持。
China’s higher education has experienced a stage of rapid development since its popularisation over the past two decades. According to the ‘2020 National Statistical Bulletin on Education Development’, China is home to 2,738 general universities. The total number of higher education students reached 41.83 million, and the gross enrolment rate of higher education was 54.4%. Driven by such rapid expansion, the classification management in higher education system become a global issue, it is particularly urgent in China and has increasingly become an important topic in theoretical research and policy practice. Classification management and evaluation of universities to promote the classified development of universities is an important feature of the development of higher education from popularization to universalization. Different classification development standards and directions reflect the different value orientations, interest preferences and demands. The main forces affecting the classification of universities include the government, the universities themselves, and the education and teaching assessment centre. They try to guide and influence the development of universities by constructing corresponding classification standard systems and evaluation results. When multiple value subjects such as governments, universities, and society participate in the game of classification management at the same time, the involvement of different values will cause conflicts and contradictions between the different subjects. Since the reform and opening up, China's higher education has established the "211", "985" projects, and "double first-class" projects, which are the development trends of macro-level classification. At the same time, the overall scale of China's private higher education has continued to expand, and the quality of teaching has been effectively improved, promoting the formation of a diversified higher education pattern and meeting the people's diverse higher education needs. On 2016, the Private Education Promotion Law, clearly proposing from for-profit and non-profit classification management of private higher education. After classification management policy, for-profit private universities appeared for the first time in China's private higher education institutions. Under the influence of China's basic national conditions and market economy characteristics, the development background and development process of China's for-profit private universities have their own uniqueness and complexity, and their educational goals are constantly changing between "for-profit" and "public welfare" balance.
From a micro perspective, for for-profit private universities, whether they respect the reasonable interest demands of all stakeholders, especially teachers and students, as the most important stakeholders in universities.
This study aims to explore the impact of the implementation of classification management policy on teachers and students in for-profit private universities. As the most important stakeholders in universities, whether their interest demands have been met, and explore their choice of for-profit Issues such as the motivations of gender-based private universities will become the key to testing the success of the higher education reform. At the same time, through the analysis of the demands of teachers and students in for-profit private universities, we can better balance the relationship between various stakeholders, meet the individual needs of the public, and promote the "public welfare" and "profitability" balance.
Guided by stakeholders’ theory, this qualitative study used the 16 student participants and 10 teacher participants and 2 senior managers from two different for-profit universities in Shanghai to understand their motivation to choose the for-profit university and explore the changes and impacts to compare the experiences and feelings of the students and teachers and to analyse whether for-profit private universities meet their needs or not in a micro perspective.
Results show perceptions of profitability among both teachers and students are lacking. By contrast, the teachers have mixed perceptions of for-profit private universities, but ‘for-profit’ is not a sufficiently strong deterrent for students to choose to enrol in a college or for teachers to choose to work there. Students' motivation to study is a combination of many factors. After the implementation of the classification management policy, the changes produced by the for-profit private universities are primarily reflected in the three aspects of university governance, students' academic experience and teachers' work experience. In terms of stakeholders' demands, the interests of teachers in for-profit private universities are diversified with the most important interests focusing on the sense of belonging and identity, followed by insufficient self-worth realisation and lower salaries. On the other hand, the student group puts extra emphasis on the transformation and practicality of knowledge and pays attention to the cultivation of personal ability and the enhancement of personal value.
The contributions of this study lie in its use of semi-structured interviews with students and teachers to the literature on stakeholders’ theory. It also bring some discussion about emergence of for-profit private universities reinforces the existence of inequality in the higher education market, although emphasis of for-profit private universities on the development of speciality education is somewhat in line with students' interest in knowledge transformation, it also exposes quality assurance issue, also, developing of for-profit private universities cannot be separated from the support of government policies, especially the teaching staff. |
| Reference: | Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). The Emergent Role of External Stakeholders in European Higher Education Governance. In: Amaral, A., Jones, G.A., Karseth, B. (eds) Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Higher Education Dynamics. Springer.
Al-Atiqi, I.M., & L.M. Alharbi. (2009). Meeting the challenge: Quality systems in private higher education in Kuwait. Quality and Higher Education,15, (1): 5-16.
Baxter,P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
Birrell, B., Healy, E., & Kinnaird, B. (2007). Cooks galore and hairdressers aplenty. People and Place, 15(1), 30–44.
Boud, D. (Ed.). (2012). Developing student autonomy in learning. Routledge press.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London:Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Bie, D.R. (2020). The Dilemma of Classification Management Policy of Private Higher Education and its Solution. Higher Education, 41(3): 68–75. (in Chinese)
Burden, P. R. (1982). Implications of teacher career development: new roles for teachers, administrators and professors. Action in Teacher Education, 4(3-4), 21-26.
Cao, Y., & Li, X. (2014). Quality and quality assurance in Chinese private higher education: A multi-dimensional analysis and a proposed framework. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(1), 65-87.
Chae, J.E., & H.K. Hong. (2009). The expansion of higher education led by private universities in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29, (3): 341-55.
Coaldrake, P. (1999). The changing climate of Australian higher education: An international perspective. Higher Education Management, 11(1), 117–134.
Chen, W.L. (2018) The Adjustment and Innovation of the Classification Management System of Private Universities from the Perspective of the Sponsors. China Higher Education Research, 5: 88–92. (in Chinese)
Cheng, Ming., Adekola, O., Albia, J., & Cai, S. (2021). Employability in Higher Education: A Review of Key Stakeholders’ Perspectives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 1-16.
David N, Laband, & Bernard Lentz (2004). Different between for profit and not for profit producer of higher education. Research in higher education, 45(4): 429-441.
Carnall L. (1998). Developing Student Autonomy in Education: The Independent Option. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 61(12):551-555.
Chin, M. H., Wang, L. C., Jin, L., Mulliken, R., Walter, J., Hayley, D. C., & Friedmann, P. D. (1999). Appropriateness of medication selection for older persons in an urban academic emergency department. Academic emergency medicine, 6(12), 1232-1241.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
D., & Varghese, N. (2009). A new dynamic: private higher education A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education.
Daly, J., Kellehear, A., & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: a methodological approach. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Beck, J. L., Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T. J., & Gregg, M. A. (2011). Saving the sagebrush sea: an ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological Conservation, 144(11), 2573-2584.
Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing research reading research re-interrogating education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Economist. (2010). For-profit colleges monsters in the making? Washington grapples with a
booming education industry. July, 2010.
Freeman, R. E., (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA: Pitman.
Galbraith, K. (2003). Towards quality private higher education in Central and Eastern Europe.
Higher Education in Europe, 28, (4): 539-558.
Gupta, A. (2008). International trends and private higher education in India. International Journal of Education Management, 22, (6): 565-594.
Galustyan,O.V., Berezhnaya,I.F., & Beloshitsky, A. V. (2017). Professional and career development of teachers. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies,68, (4):158-172.
Guo, B.R. (2020) Difficulties faced by non-profit private universities under the classification management and its development strategies. Heilongjiang Higher Education Research, 1: 40–44. (in Chinese)
Gillies M. (2011). University governance: questions for a new era. Higher Education Policy Institute.
Groves, P., Kayyali, B., Knott, D., & Kuiken, S. V. (2016). The 'big data' revolution in healthcare: Accelerating value and innovation.
Guest, G. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. London:Sage.
He Jinhui. (2010). Differences and Consensus on Classification Management of Private Schools. Research on Education Development, 10:25-29. (in Chinese)
Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational researcher, 12(2), 14-19.
Hu Wei &Fang Jianfeng. (2012). Policy evaluation of deepening reform of public converted schools in Shanghai under the framework of classified management of private schools. Shanghai Education Evaluation Research, 6:31-35. (in Chinese)
John Wiley & Sons. Schensul, J. J. (2012). Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Methods and Designs (1st ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hansmann,H. (1981). Reforming non-profit corporation law. University of Pennsylvania law review. 129(3): 497-623.
Henry Rosovsky. (1990). The University - An Owner's Manual. New York: Company.
Marshall, S.J. (2018). Internal and External Stakeholders in Higher Education. In: Shaping the University of the Future. Springer, Singapore.
Jalowiecki. B. (2010). Prospects for the development of private higher education in Poland.
Higher Education in Europe, 26, (3): 421-425.
Jue, H.B. (2016). Classification Management of Private Universities from the Perspective of Formal System. Education and Career, (05): 11–14 (in Chinese).
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business Press.
Kinser, K., & Daniel C. Levy. (2006). For-profit higher education: U.S. tendencies, international echoes. Springer international handbooks of education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lane,B. (2009).The Australian Overseas student debacle: Visa crackdown will hit numbers, The Australian, 21.
Lee, M.N.N. (2008). Restructuring higher education: Public-private partnership. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1 (2): 188-198.
Levy, D.C. (2007). Private public interfaces in higher education development: Two sectors in sync? Paper presented at World Bank Regional Seminar on Development Economics, in Beijing, 1617.
Levy, C.D.(2011). Public policy for private education: A global analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13 (4): 383-386.
Levy, D. C. (2012). How important is private higher education in Europe? A regional analysis in global context. European Journal of Education, 47(2), 178-197.
Levy, D. C. (2015). For-profit versus nonprofit private higher education. International higher education (54), 12-13.
Li, W. (2013). The road to privatization of higher education in China: a new cultural revolution? Springer Science & Business Media. (in Chinese)
LI Qian., & LU Wei., (2018). Analysis of ten outstanding problems in the classification management of private schools. China Education Journal, (8) :5-12. (in Chinese)
Li Fuhua, (2012). University Governance and University Management. Beijing: People’s Publishing House,2012. (in Chinese)
Li, F., & Morgan, W.J. (2011). Private higher education in China: Problems and possibilities. In
Higher education reform in China. Routledge. (in Chinese)
Liu K. (2021). Governance of Non-profit private higher vocational education: Dilemma and solutions-based on perspective of private education promotion law. Journal of Vocational and technical education. 42(9), 38-43. (in Chinese)
Liu X, Zhou H, Hunt S, & Zhang Y,. (2021). For-profit or not-for-profit: what has affected the implementation of the policy for private universities in China? Higher Education Policy.
Liu X (2018). The development of private universities in socialist China. High Education Policy 33(2):1–19.
Liu, X., Zhou, & H., Hunt, S. (2023). For-Profit or Not-for-Profit: What Has Affected the Implementation of the Policy for Private Universities in China? Higher Education Policy, 36, 190–212.
Lu Jun (2010). Research on the Model of For-Profit Universities in the United States: A Case Study of Phoenix University, Central China Normal University. (in Chinese)
Ladd DR (1975). Myths and realities of university governance. College and research libraries, 36(2):97–105.
Mahsood Shah & Chenicheri Sid Nair (2013) Private for-profit higher education in Australia: widening access, participation and opportunities for public-private collaboration, Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 820-832.
Marginson, S. (2004). Competition and Markets in Higher Education: A ‘Glonacal’ Analysis. Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 175-244.
Mears, C. L. (2009). Interviewing for education and social science research. Springer.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. Jossey-bass press.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. London:
Mok, K. H. (2009). The growing importance of the privateness in education: challenges for higher education governance in China, Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(1), 35-49.
McCowan, T. ( 2004). The growth of private higher education in Brazil: Implications for equity
and quality. Journal of Education Policy, 19, (4): 453-472.
MOE. (2014a). Provisional rules of ordinary undergraduate institution setting.
http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A03/moe_560/moe_1389/moe_1390/moe_1393/201002/t20100226_20351.html (In Chinese).
MOE. (2014b). Regulations on the setting of ordinary HE institutions during the period of
the '11th five years plan'.
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_2530/200811/40929.html(In Chinese).
MOE. (2016). Statistical Bulletin on the Development of National Education in 2016.
http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/201707/t20170710_309042.html?authkey=bf1in
(In Chinese).
MOE(2020). 2020 National Education Development Statistical Bulletin. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sj zl_fztjgb/202108/t20210827_555004.html.
MOE(2022). 2022 National Education Development Statistical Bulletin http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202307/t20230705_1067278.html
Mitchell, R., Agle, B. &Wood, D. (1997), Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22(4):853-886.
National People's Congress. (1998). Higher education law of the People's Republic of China.
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_619/200407/1311.html
(In Chinese)
National People’s Congress (2016) Revised Version of the Promotion Law of Private Education, Beijing: National People’s Congress (in Chinese).
National People’s Congress (2017) Revised Version of the Promotion Law of Private Education, Beijing: National People’s Congress (in Chinese).
Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2012). Basics of social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
Oketch, M. (2009). Public-private mix in the provision of higher education in East Africa: Stakeholders’ perspective. Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39,(1):21-33.
Pan Xiang, Yuan(2005). Some Dry Issues in the Reform of the Property Rights System of Schools in China: On the Property Rights of Public and Private Schools. Education Development Research, (14): 17-22. (in Chinese)
Pan. Y.Y. (2005). Classification, Positioning, Characteristics and Quality - Issues in the Development of Chinese Higher Education. Journal of Fujian University of Engineering. 2:103-108. (in Chinese)
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Volume 2. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Postholm, M. B. (2012). Teachers’ professional development: A theoretical review. Educational research, 54(4), 405-429.
Ramakrishna, Vasudha. (2014). For-Profit Model in Higher Education. Centre for Civil Society, 1-32.
Richard, Luke (2006). Universities of Education. Translated by Yu Peiwen. Beijing University press.
Richard S.Ruch (2001).The rise of the for-profit university, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Richard Luke (2006). Higher Education Corporations: The Rise of For-Profit Universities, Beijing, Peking University Press.
R. Edward Freeman(2006). Strategic Management: Stakeholder Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Press.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers: Sage.
Shah, M., &S. C. Nair. (2013). Private for-Profit Higher Education in Australia: Widening Access, Participation and Opportunities for Public-private Collaboration. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(5): 820–832.
Shah, M., S. C. Nair, & L. Bennett. (2013). Factors Influencing Student Choice to Study at Private Higher Education Institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (4): 402–416.
Mahsood Shah, Hai Yen Vu & Sue-Ann Stanford. (2019). Trends in private higher education in Australia. Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 23(1), 5-11.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.
Shank M.D,Walker &M.Hayes T.(1995). Understanding Professional Service Expectation: Do We Know What Our Students Expect in a Quality Education. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 13:71-89.
TAO., Xiping (2005). Promoting the rational transformation of China's private education. Education Development Research, (20):5-8. (in Chinese)
Trow, M. A. (2005). Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII. UC Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies.
Vardi, I. (2011). The changing relationship between the scholarship of teaching (and learning) and universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 1-7.
Wang Wenyuan (2007). China's private education between ideal and reality. Beijing Press.
Vardi, I. (2009). The impacts of different types of workload allocation models on academic satisfaction and working life. Higher Education, 57(4), 499–508. (in Chinese)
Wang hai hong. (2023). The practical dilemma and optimization path of classification management of private universities from the perspective of stakeholders. Journal of Yanbian institute of education, 37(3), 36-40. (in Chinese)
Watty, Kim. (2003). When will Academics Learn about Quality? Quality in Higher Education. 9: 213-221.
Webb, C. (1992). The use of the first person in academic writing: objectivity, language and gatekeeping. Journal of advanced nursing, 17(6):747-752.
Wu Hua., &Zhang Luhong (2015). Policy risk analysis of the national plan for classified management of private schools. China Higher Education Research.
Wu, Hua (2016). Discussion on Classification Management of Private Education. Educational Economic Review, 2:12-15. (in Chinese)
Xiaoying, M., and M. Abbott. (2008). The development of private higher education in a mature
market: A New Zealand case study. Education Research and Perspective, 35(2): 73-94.
Xu, X.Q. (2019) A Brief Discussion on the Phenomenon of Lagging Educational Policies - Taking the Classification Management policy of Private Universities as an Example. Journal of Education & Economic, 35(6)：72-77. (in Chinese).
Xu, G. Q. (2020). Connotation, international situation and development strategy of vocational undergraduate education. Journal of Vocational Mechanical Education, 3:7. (in Chinese)
Tian, X. (2018) Accelerating the Implementation of Classification Management Policies in Private Universities. Modern Education Science, 12: 125–130. (in Chinese)
Yan, J.S., (2013). A Study of the Differences and Links between Teaching and Learning in Applied Undergraduate and Higher Vocational Education. Journal of Liaoning institute of science and technology. 15(1): 84-86. (in Chinese)
Yan, F.Q. (2019) Solving the Dilemma of Non-Governmental Education Transformation from the Perspective of Institution. Journal of the Chinese Society of Education, 7: 15–21 (in Chinese).
Yang Cheng. (2023) The Evolution Path, Shortcomings and Prospect of Classification Management Research in Private Universities: An Investigation Based on Academic History. National Journal of Education Administration, (1): 49-55. (in Chinese)
Yin, H., Lu, G., & Wang, W. Y. (2014). Unmasking the teaching quality of higher education: University students’ course experience and approaches to learning in China. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 949–970.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Zamudio-Suaréz, F., & Comey, R. L. E. (2017). Why historians want you to journal in the age of trump. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31.
Zhu, M., Urhahne, D., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2018). The longitudinal effects of teacher judgement and different teacher treatment on students’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychology, 38(5), 648-668.
Zhou H., Liu Q., Tian J., & Li Q. (2018). Private education in China: Achievement and challenge. Springer Nature Singapore.
Zhong, B.L., Zhao, Y.S., Hong, Y. &Fan, Z. (2010). Seizing the Historical Opportunity to Resolve the Deep Contradiction to Promote Healthy Development: The Reform and Development Research of Private Higher Education in China. Chinese Higher Education Research, 23: 11–14. (in Chinese) |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
教育學系
109152518 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109152518 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 251801.pdf | | 3303Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
