Download pdf
Research Review on the Improvement of Scholarships Evaluation in Chinese Colleges
- 1 Thompson Rivers University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Scholarships have been playing an important role in higher education because of its positive incentives. As the essential element of scholarships, scholarships evaluation has a direct influence on the effect of scholarships. Educational workers have worked on improving scholarships evaluation for function maximization, and they have gained theoretical and practical achievements. Built on related studies, the paper is to briefly introduce the current situation of scholarships in Chinese colleges from three aspects: purpose, program and process, to describe three obvious difficulties scholarships evaluation having faced: Matthew effect caused by changeless criteria, unfairness in reviewing non-academic criteria, and the dominance of summative assessment, and to relate three corresponding strategies educational workers have put forward: making Catfish effect by establishing dynamic evaluation system, increasing fairness by quantitating non-academic criteria, and weakening the dominance of summative assessment by introducing foreign educational assessment theories. It is worth to further explore how to gain better balance between achieve effectiveness and demonstrate practicality.
Keywords
scholarships, evaluation, criteria
[1]. Xian, J. & Song, Y. (2018). Can they take it one step further?: An empirical analysis of the effects of scholarship on students’ academic performance. Renmin University of China Education Journal, (01), 97-112.
[2]. Tian, S. & Fang, L. (2014). The optimization of college scholarship evaluation system from the perspective of scholarship incentive function. College Counselor, (01), 67-70.
[3]. Li, H. (2010). Comparative study on Chinese and American higher education financial aid system (PhD dissertation, Wuhan University).
[4]. Qu, Y., Yue, C. & Qu, S. (2019). Development context and characteristics of university student financial aid policy. China Higher Education, (07), 28-30.
[5]. Liu, D. (2009). The comparative study of scholarship system between China and foreign countries. Journal of Changchun university, (02), 88-90.
[6]. Gui, Y. & Liu, Y. (2016). A comparative study of undergraduate scholarship evaluation systems between China and the United States. Journal of Hubei Normal University ( Philosophy and Social Science), 36(4), 140-145.
[7]. Shenzhen Vocational and Technical College Scholarship Selection Regulations. https://www.szpt.edu.cn/info/1433/3288.htm
[8]. Ou, X. & Luo, F. (2011). Analysis of the Matthew effect in college scholarship evaluation and its avoidance countermeasures. Studies in Ideological Education, (08), 107-109.
[9]. Hu, T., Liu, X. & Sun, L. (2016). Exploration of problems and countermeasures in the implementation of scholarship evaluation system: Taking “Jiangsu X College” as an Example. Industrial & Science Tribune, (09), 235-237.
[10]. Lin, Q. (2005). The construction of undergraduate scholarship and appraisal system. Higher Education Forum, (01), 138-140.
[11]. Eisner, E. W. (1972). [Review of Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning, by B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings, & G. F. Madaus]. Studies in Art Education, 14(1), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319918
[12]. Zuo, X. (2000). Reflections on the reform of Chinese college scholarship system in the new era. Heilongjiang Higher Education Research, (06), 1-4.
[13]. Sun, W. (2015). The “Matthew Effect” and “Catfish Effect” in college scholarship evaluation. Journal of Nanjing Radio & TV University, (02), 65-67.
[14]. Gu, T., & Wang, L. (2012). The influence of Matthew Effect in the award work of colleges and universities and the ways to avoid it. Educational Exploration, (12), 72-73.
[15]. Shan, Z. (2012). Innovative research on the evaluation mechanism of scholarships for college students. Education Review, (05), 66-68.
[16]. Peng, Y. (2005). Quantitative methods of evaluating college students’ scholarship. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Chemical Technology, (03), 38-39+45.
[17]. Zhang, M. & Guo, J. (2021). Research on problems and strategies in the evaluation of university scholarships: A case study of Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture. University, (46), 33-35.
[18]. Scriven, M. (1996). Types of Evaluation and Types of Evaluator. American Journal of Evaluation, 17(2), 151–161.
[19]. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative Assessment: Getting the Focus Right. Educational Assessment, 11(3), 283-289.
[20]. Cai, X. & Zhuang, M. (2013). Evolution of western education evaluation models and its enlightenment. Higher Education Development and Evaluation, (02), 37-44+105-106.
[21]. Yu, Z. & Xie, Y. (2015). The transformation of college scholarship evaluation system: From distribution fairness to relation justice. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, (04), 5-7.
Cite this article
Wei,L. (2023). Research Review on the Improvement of Scholarships Evaluation in Chinese Colleges. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,26,71-75.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Politics and Socio-Humanities
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).