facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Global international scientific
analytical project
GISAP
GISAP logotip
Перевод страницы
 

Quality Indicators of Higher Education in Serbia [2]

Quality Indicators of Higher Education in Serbia [2]
Grozdanka Gojkov, соискатель, профессор

University of Belgrade, Сербия

Участник конференции

The text considers current approaches to quality of education grounded on external control of outcomes (mechanicistic-technicistic orientation and economical logics), as well as the alternative proposed by the advocates of socio-culture and critical currents within pedagogy, insisting on respect for essential  characteristics of educational process (uniqueness, comprehensiveness, development, complexity, dynamics, context and unpredictability...). Higher education teaching quality is considered according to the assessment of the degree one has mastered essential indicators referring to: acquisition of study programs, realization of one’s own development, harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being trained for independent learning and innovativeness. The research is explorative and the assessment has been carried out by students, as actors in education process (purposeful sample – 178; Teacher Training Faculty – Belgrade University and Philosophical Faculty – Novi Sad University). The following are the main findings:

  1. All the indicators are assessed in a rather similar manner, implying that students consider that all quality indicators have been realized to the same degree.
  2. The following shortcomings have been viewed as those hindering success of studying: poor organization of studies, inadequate lectures, the lack of time and poorly organized practice.
  3. Success of studying and the satisfaction with the choice of studies have not been discriminative variables.
  4. The differences have been manifested in regard to the shortcomings hindering success of studying; i.e. the shortcomings of practice organization are related to being trained for practical application of what has been learnt (.795) and to the negative correlation with the degree the study program has been mastered (-.304), as quality indicators; the remaining shortcomings: poor organization of studies, inadequate lectures andthe lack of time have also had a significant discriminative function in view of being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, leading to a conclusion that this can be an indicator of differences between academic and vocational studies. Vocational students expect studies to train them for practice and they associate studying with application of what has been learnt, while this correlation is the opposite in the case of students of Philosophical faculty when being equipped for self-learning is in question which is related to the level studying program has been mastered – the shortcomings in practice are associated with being poorly equipped for application of what has been learnt, rather than the level studying program has been mastered as an indicator of quality.

Keywords: quality management, higher education teaching.

 

Introduction 

Teaching quality management, especially in higher education teaching, is considered an essential determinant of sustainable development in the conditions of highly competitive global market. Sustainable development implies changes management that does not remain at the level of adaptive responses to the environment, but rather emphasizes development innovativeness, implying certain competences among which central place belongs to readiness for change; from psychological point of view, this means the presence of highly developed flexibility, creative and non-dogmatic thinking, as well as to ability to accept pluralism of ideas, the ability to tolerate suspense and uncertainty in cognitive sense, while in conative sense it refers to taking initiative, being innovative and ready for risk taking (Djurisic-Bojanovic 2008: 45). The changes introduced into higher education, created by the Bologna process, should have contributed to realization of these tendencies. The ongoing discussions point out that the current approaches to the phenomenon of quality have introduced assessment culture grounded on the external control of outcomes (mechanicistic-technicistic oriented values and economic logics); as a consequence, an alternative to this has appeared, advocated by the representatives of socio-cultural and critical movement within pedagogy, insisting on the respect for fundamental characteristics of educational process (uniqueness, comprehensiveness, development, complexity, dynamics, context, unpredictability…). A statement is often found in literature that quality is socially construed concept (Stancic 2012: 289), dependant on the context in which it is talked about it (Stancic 2012: 289). Such an approach implies that all the actors should create a shared understanding of quality and search for more adequate ways of reaching it (Stancic 2012: 302), expecting from high education didactics to invest more efforts into focusing on emancipatory approaches to learning in the sense of creating the “culture of knowledge quality”. In contrast to such a viewpoint, there are approaches to quality in education nowadays in Serbia, relying on standardization, unification of measures and procedures, with an intention to ensure better result through these arrangements. Assessment culture grounded on the external control of the outcomes is considered to be oriented towards utilitarian values and mechanicistic-technicistic approaches, normative philosophy and economic logics, which actually is a concept of quality different from the previous one.

Quality of studies

Quality of university studies is considered a complex phenomenon, so that it seems that there is no issue in realization of teaching concepts not regarding quality (Nikolic, Paunovic, according to Bojovic, Z. 2012: 36-37). This was probably the starting point of those advocating the Bologna process, since they assumed that structural changes, directed to the coherence of European higher education space would further develop quality of studies. As it now seems, the greatest manifestation of these tendencies within the reforms has reflected merely on what had always been worked on, i.e. structural changes. Essential changes which should have been manifested in higher education quality are still not visible. Various efforts and approaches to the notion of quality, as a set of significant dimensions (features) manifested within education, is in question, are caused, among other things, by differences in ways quality is considered, conditioned by differences in theoretical standpoints permeating the grounds of theoretical analyses (Antonijevic 2012: 25). Majority of starting points in the attempts to determine the essence of education quality deal with what quality of education is and what it involves (Anderson, according to Antonijevic 2012: 25), while the answers to the previous questions are in accordance with theoretical orientation underlying the search for the answers to the raised questions; thus the following dimensions have been emphasized in the reform of the system of education in Serbia, which started in 2000: openness, measurability and verifiability, efficacy, effectiveness, righteousness, legislative regulations, sustainability, coherence, etc (Kovac-Cerovic 2004). It could be concluded, according to the previously stated, that in the mentioned dimensions there are no unambiguous indicators that the system would go towards essential changes of studies, ensuring the culture of teaching and learning, which could be taken as the basic, essential dimension, directly leading to quality of higher education.

Understanding of education quality is characterized by various approaches to defining quality of education, which is a consequence of multi-layered emphasized social-interest fragmentation (Djermannov-Kostovic 2006: 253) and a fact that in various fields quality is differently defined, contributing to relativity of meaning of the term and leading to it being used more as a descriptive than as a normative notion (Ibid). Various views on quality, e.g: quality as an attribute in broader and narrower sense; as a degree of excellence; as a value and as assessment (Djermanov, Kostovic 2006: 254) permeate complex conceptual definitions of the notion, as well as its understanding in the field of education. So, under the influence of one of them, quality is viewed as well-being education provides, through the value education has as qualitative determinant of pedagogic process and achieved results, and also as an attribute feature of subjects involved in educational process (Djukic 2002: 510). Since the efforts within higher education quality traced by Lisbon convention dating from 1997 emphasized the question of quality of aims, actor program, processes and results, a need appeared to more clearly determine the notion of quality; it has turned out that this is not a simple question. Some authors have pointed out that quality is “impossible to seize”, unreachable ideal, in a sense “moving target” (Goddard, according to Djukic 2002: 56).

Analyses have indicated that there is no generally accepted definition of education quality, but the term could imply value education has; in other words, it could refer to value determinants of pedagogical work, as well as attributive feature of the subjects involved in educational process (Vlahovic 1996). The categories of definitions of higher education quality found in relevant literature could be classified as: to quality as measure of values, quality as the extent to which the targets have been met, and the third refers to quality as a measure of standard fulfilment (Djukic 2002: 510). It is inevitable to include multidimensionality in considerations of quality essence and majority of authors hold that it is a significant feature being in the grounds of complexity conditioned by numerous factors and their permeatedness at individual and social level. All this leads to the fact that a consensus has already been reached today that individual quality indicators cannot lead to reliable and valid indicators for relevant evaluation of higher education quality (Tunijnman, Batani 1994: 76). Educational indicators are considered to be the data talking about functioning of educational system, indicators of states, indicators enabling assessments of the current state of affairs and functioning of the system of education. A standpoint is found in the literature (Djukic 2002: 512) that there is agreement about the following features of educational indicators: they are quantitative, but the are more than a mere numeric expression; they give summary information on relevant aspects of educational system functioning; the inform interested actors; as diagnostic means, they are grounds of evaluation; in certain cases they can be a glimpse, a solid represent of a broader circle of other indicator meanings; in other words, in a sense it can be an indicator of interaction of a number of factors, their interrelations, thus having a great informational value (Tunijnman, Batani 1994: 56).

Three groups of indicators can be identified in consulted literature as relevant for higher education: input indicators: material and professional (professional and pedagogic teacher competencies); process and indicators of performances (curricula, content sources, students’ activities, assessment of students’ success…); output indicators (specific knowledge, abilities, skills, values, attitudes, motivation, independent learning abilities…). Attention has been paid to the output factors which are in the text considered from the angle of students’ understanding of quality. Such an approach to observation of phenomenon of higher education quality aimed at bypassing evaluation of quality based on external control of outcomes (mechanicistic-technicistic orientation and economic logics); thus it could fall within alternative approaches proposed by the advocates of socio-cultural and critical currents within pedagogy, insisting on respect for the essential characteristics of the phenomenon of education (uniqueness, comprehensiveness, development, complexity, dynamics, context, unpredictability…). Quality of higher education teaching is considered according to evaluation of the level of fulfilment of essential indicators referring to the following: the level study programs are mastered, realization of one’s own development, harmony of one’s personal value system with welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being equipped for self-learning and independent learning and being trained for innovativeness. Majority of starting points in the attempts to determine the essence of education quality deal with what quality of education is and what it involves (Anderson, according to Antonijevic 2012: 25), while the answers to the previous questions are in accordance with theoretical orientation underlying the search for the answers to the raised questions; thus the following dimensions have been emphasized in the reform of the system of education in Serbia, which started in 2000: openness, measurability and verifiability, efficacy, effectiveness, righteousness, legislative regulations, sustainability, coherence, etc (Kovac-Cerovic 2004). It could be concluded according to the previous dimensions of education system quality what quality is and how it is defined, what determines the essence and the phenomenon of quality of education, and how it is possible to incite quality improvement, what are the dimensions according to which the general level of quality within the system of education could be encouraged. However, according to the previously stated, it could be concluded that in the mentioned dimensions there are no unambiguous indicators that the system would go towards essential changes of studies, ensuring the culture of teaching and learning, which could be taken as the basic, essential dimension, directly leading to quality of higher education.

What seems rather important for the positioning of the research problem into theoretical context relevant for the angle of consideration of the issue of quality is the fact that indicators of higher education quality are considered according to the evaluation of students, thus observing the contribution of higher education teaching to more comprehensive self-observation and self-reflexive, self-managed learning, which should ensure freedom of person’s action inspired by contemporary philosophical discussions leading towards creation of competencies expected in modern working and social context. This is the reason why participatory epistemology is introduced in the theoretical context of the research, having in mind that, from the angle of modern philosophy of knowledge, it is considered to be in the function of realization of emancipatory potentials of students, recognized in the awareness of students on the importance of knowledge, need to develop creative potentials, flexible knowledge structures, creativity, critical attitude in observation, thinking, learning and problem solving, readings to take risks, expected in the conditions of highly competitive global market… What is also considered as one of the indicators of emancipatory potentials refers to learning with understanding, raising questions and search for answers, which further implies that the ways of moving towards the “culture of learning” as an indicator of higher education quality are to be found in emancipatory higher education didactics.

Methodological framework

Methodological framework of the research could be outlined in the following way: the research is explorative; problem and aim: to consider the attitude of students towards indicators of quality of studies, i.e. to consider to what an extent the type of studies (academic, vocational), average mark during studies, and the assessment of the adequacy of choice of studies influence the evaluation of certain indicators of the level of realization of quality of studies (the level to which study program has been mastered, realization of one’s own development, harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being trained for independent learning and innovativeness); it has been assumed that students equally appreciate the mentioned success indicators, while differences are determined according to type of studies, academic success and evaluation of adequacy of choice of studies; the sample: purposeful (N – 178; Preschool Teacher Training College in Vrsac and Philosophical Faculty – Novi Sad University); variables: independent: average mark during studies, choice of studies, type of studies; dependent: indicators or the level of reached quality (the level to which study program has been mastered, realization of one’s own development, harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being trained for independent learning and innovativeness).

Findings and Interpretation

4.1.  The choice of studies

The average mark of students ranges between 6,55 to 9,72, and the average mark for the sample as a whole is 7,89. The sample includes 44,4% of subjects studying at the Preschool Teacher Training College in Vrsac and 55,6%subjects from the Philosophical Faculty in Novi Sad. Considering the sample as a whole, majority of subjects (95,8%) holds that they have made a good choice when their studies are in question. In other words, students think that their choice of the study program they have enrolled is adequate, i.e. they are satisfied with their choice; as a consequence, their learning motivation should be intrinsic, and, according to standpoints of emancipatory didactics, their interestedness in the quality of studies should also be expressed. The following graph shows the data on the evaluation of choice of studies.

Graph 4.1.1: Percentage of subjects who thik that their choice of studies is/is not adequate

4.2.  Contribution of studies to the level of realization of education aspect

Average estimation of contribution of studies to certain aspects of education ranges from medium to high (scope from 1 to 5). The average of the highest mark is 3,99 and it refers to the indicator being trained for independent learning. The graph clearly shows that the average marks of contribution of studies are almost uniform, i.e. the differences are not noticeably expressed; thus, it could be said that students pay equal attention to all the stated indicators of quality of studies; in other words, they consider that their studies have evenly contributed to their advancement according to all the indicators; the finding could be considered an answer to the question or the research problem, i.e. it could be considered the confirmation of the assumption. Namely, it has been assumed that students think that their studies have equally contributed to all the mentioned indicators, i.e. education aspects.

Graph 4. 2.1: Average estimations of contribution of studies to certain education aspects

4.3.  Success of studies and indicators of higher education quality

The data on the relation between success of studies and indicators of higher education quality show that none of the Pearson coefficient of correlation is statistically significant, leading to a conclusion that students, regardless to their success during studies, equally value the quality of the observed quality indicators. In other words, it could be concluded that success of studies is not a variable influencing the differences in regard to the contribution of studies to their progress in a variety of aspects (the level to which study program has been mastered, realization of one’s own development, harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being trained for independent learning and innovativeness).

A step further in consideration of the finding refers to the factor analysis of the indicators of higher education quality, which has been conducted according to the main component analysis method and Kreuzer’s criterion for identification of the number of factors. Since only one factor has been extracted, it was not possible to carry out rotation. Furthermore, it should be noticed that all the factor saturations were significant, which is another confirmation of the equal assessment of contribution of studies to the stated indicators. The value of communalities of individual indicators is in favour of the assumption that each of them could be a sufficient represent of quality of studies. Namely, individually, all indicators have a significant place when dealing with quality of studies, while, all of them together have been classified within a single factor; in other words, they contribute to the same thing, understanding of quality of studies, which is in accordance to previous finding. It is noticeable, according to the level of variance (the extracted factor explains 46,14% of the variance of quality indicators), that the stated indicator explains slightly less that a half of indicators which might mark the contribution to success of studies, referring to the need to broaden the list of the observed indicators of quality of studies.

Table 4.3.1.

The factor burden matrix

Quality indicators

Factor

1

The level to which study program has been mastered

.653

realization of one’s own development

.669

harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress

.650

being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt

.613

being trained for independent learning and innovativeness

.720

being trained for innovativeness

.760

 

The relations between the observed variables have been more clearly expressed in cluster analysis, conducted in a hierarchical cluster of all research variables, according to the between-group linkage method. Quadratic Euclidean distance has been used for measuring the distance between clusters. Cluster analysis was carried out in 8 steps. It has turned out that in the first step the following variables were clustered in one cluster: 8. the choice of studies was appropriate and 9. faculty, i.e. college, while another cluster consisted of: 1. The level to which study program has been mastered, 2.Realization of one’s own development, 3. Harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, 4. Being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, 5. Being trained for independent learning and 6. Being equipped for innovativeness. It could be argued accordingly that these are the two most closely correlated sets of variables, along with the observation that the second sent consists of the variables which could be labelled as indicators of quality of studies, which might also be another confirmation of a solid choice of indicators of quality of studies. The dendogram also shows other relations of the observed variables; it could be also noticed that the clustering is a confirmation of previous statements on good correlative relations between the indicators of quality of studies.

The list of variables in cluster analysis: 1. The level to which study program has been mastered, 2. Realization of one’s own development, 3. Harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, 4. Being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, 5. Being trained for independent learning and 6. Being equipped for innovativeness, 7. Average mark during studies; 8. The choice of study program was appropriate, 9. Faculty, i.e. college.

 

Graph 4.3.2: Dendrogram

4.4.  The differences between the students of Preschool Teacher Training College Vrsac and the students of Philosophical Faculty in Novi Sad in regard to quality indicators

The differences between the students of Preschool Teacher Training College Vrsac and the students of Philosophical Faculty in Novi Sad in regard to quality indicators have been examined according to canonical discriminant analysis, stepwise method. The analysis has been conducted in two steps and in the second step two variables have found themselves in the model: being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt and being trained for independent learning. The rest of the variables have been rejected from the analysis, since they have not given significant contribution to differentiating between groups. Only one canonical discriminant function has been identified in the analysis, and the correlation between the discriminant function and the faculty-college students enrolled is of medium level (.474); in other words, there are moderate differences between the students of Preschool Teacher Training College Vrsac and the students of Philosophical Faculty in Novi Sad in regard to quality indicators in view of the discriminant factor (canonical correlation is statistically significant – Wilks lambda .775; Chi-square 40.216, df 2; p .000). It is also worth mentioning that the discriminant fuction is in positive correlation to being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt (.876) and in negative relation to being equipped for independent, i.e. self- learning (-.138). Discriminant function is more emphasized in the case of Preschool Teacher Training College students (.0650) in comparison to the students of Philosophical Faculty in Novi Sad (-.440). In other words, according to the evaluation provided by the students in Vrsac, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt is more expressed in their studies, while in the case of students from Novi Sad, this correlation is inverse in regard to being equipped for self-learning. This might be explained as a consequence of the type of studies, i.e. noticed difference between vocational and academic studies, which, in case such a finding were confirmed by subsequent studies, would be in favour of both types of studies, i.e. all the efforts to more clearly articulate academic and differentiate them from vocational studies, having in mind that there is still an ongoing discussion on the matter in professional circles.

Furthermore, the correlations between success of studies and quality indicators in the case of Preschool Teacher Training College students in Vrsac and Philosophical Faculty students in Novi Sad, expressed by Pearson’s coefficient, have shown that non of the Pearson’s correlations between success of studies and quality indicators is statistically important, and that only one correlation between success of studies and quality indicators only in the case of academic studies students is statistically significant. It is the correlation between the success in studies and the level to which study program has been mastered, which is with these students rather low, but statistically significant (.219*). The interpretation of the finding could accept the possibility that the students enrolled in academic studies, rather than vocational, have paid more attention to the importance of this variable for the quality of studies on the whole. What remains is the issue of essence of this correlation. We do not know which average marks of students’ success during studies have contributed to this correlation. The value of average mark would be significant for interpretation of the finding. If it is assumed that high average values of success have significantly contributed to the identified correlation, it could be argued that the students enrolled in academic studies have highly evaluated the level to which the study program has been mastered, as quality indicator, and vice versa.

4.5.  The shortcomings hindering success of studies

According to the statements referring to shortcomings, i.e. the factors hindering success of studies and influencing the quality of studies, practice has been identified as one of the hindrances in realization of quality of studies. We were interested in the factor practice, as a hindering factor, has been correlated with. According to the canonical discriminant analysis data it can be seen that in the second step two variables were found in the model: being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt and the level to which study program has been mastered. The rest of the variables have been rejected from the analysis, since they did not give significant contribution to differentiating between the groups. In other words, it has been estimated that the shortcomings of practice has influenced the variables being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt and the level to which study program has been mastered. It is also noticeable that the correlation between the discriminant fuction and the shortcomings of practice is of medium value, i.e. that there are moderate differences between the students who have stated the shortcomings of practice as a hindrance during studies and those who have not offered such a statement (.423). The function identified according to the analysis is statistically significant (p .000). The findings have also shown that the discriminant function is in positive correlation with being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt (.795) and in negative correlation with the level to which study program has been mastered (-.304) as quality indicators; in other words the shortcomings of practice have marked poorer level of being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt while they are not connected to the level study program has been mastered as quality indicators. At the same time, the discriminant function is more emphasized in the case of students who have not stated the shortcomings of practice as a hindrance (.271) in comparison to those who have (-.794).

What remains beyond all the stated is the issue of how students actually see the level to which study program has been mastered, what does this mean to them, what is the level at which study program is actually mastered, what is this level in the sense of the known taxonomies of realization, etc. This might be considered from the angle of understanding of competencies, or the students being familiar with the competences expected from them after studies, and bring them into relation with the evaluations of success of their studies, while they actually do not associate inadequacy of practice with realization of the program, etc. One of possible interpretations would be that vocational students get in contact with practice sooner and more intensely, thus they are able to better consider its significance; this might lead to a conclusion that they have conditioned the importance of this indicator, while the negative mark of the function in the case of indicator of the level to which study program has been mastered has been influenced by academic students.

What has been found among those hindrances influencing quality of studies is poor organization of studies. The differences between the students who have stated poor organization of studies as an impediment and those who have not have been examined according to canonical discriminant analysis, stepwise method. The data show that analysis was carried out in one step, resulting in the model including the variable being trained for practical application of what has been learnt. The rest of the variables were rejected from the analysis, since they did not give significant contribution to differentiating between groups. The analysis identified only one canonical discriminant function. It can also be noticed that the correlation between the discriminant function and poor organization of studies as a hindrance is rather low, i.e. there are small differences between those students who have stated poor organization of studies as a hindrance and those who have not, in regard to discriminant function. The function established according to the analysis is statistically significant (canonical correlation:  .186; relevance: p: .018). It is important that the discriminant function is in maximal positive correlation with being trained for practical application of what has been learnt (1.00), which actually means that the discriminant function is boiled down to the variable being trained for practical application of what has been learnt. The discriminant function is more expressed in the case of the students who have stated poor organization of studies as a hindrance (420), than with those students who have not (-.085).

Inadequate lectures have also been stated as a hindrance to higher quality of studies. The differences between the students who have stated inadequate lectures as an impediment and those who have not have been examined according to canonical discriminant analysis, stepwise method. The data show that analysis was carried out in two steps, having in the second step identified the model including two variables: being trained for practical application of what has been learnt andthe extent to which study program has been mastered. The rest of the variables were rejected from the analysis, since they did not give significant contribution to differentiating between groups. The analysis identified only one canonical discriminant function. It can also be seen that the correlation between the discriminant function and poor organization of studies as a hindrance is moderate, (.363), i.e. there are medium differences between those students who have stated inadequate lectures as a hindrance and those who have not, in regard to discriminant function; furthermore, the function established according to the analysis is statistically significant (p: .000). The findings have also shown that the discriminant function is in positive correlation with being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt (.585) and in negative correlation with the level to which study program has been mastered (-.575). The discriminant function is more emphasized in the case of students who have not stated inadequate lectures as a hindrance (.326) in comparison to those who have (-.458). As a consequence, it could be concluded that inadequate lectures are the greatest hindrance for being trained for practical application of knowledge. The interpretation would be the same as in the previous one.

What has also been found among those hindrances influencing quality of studies is the lack of time. The differences between the students who have stated lack of time as an impediment and those who have not have also been examined according to canonical discriminant analysis, stepwise method. The data show that there are no variables significantly contributing to differences between groups, so that there is none included in the analysis. In other words, there are no significant differences between the students who have stated the lack of time as an impediment and those who have not, in view of quality indicators. Thus, it could be concluded that the evaluations of indicators of quality of studies are not significantly correlated with the lack of time.

The above stated findings as well as their interpretations are considered as answers to the question: to what an extent the type of studies (academic, vocational), average mark during studies and evaluation of the adequacy of the choice of studies influence the evaluation of certain indicators of the level of realization of quality studies (acquisition of study programs, realization of one’s own development, harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being trained for independent learning and innovativeness); the findings have confirmed the assumption that students equally evaluate the mentioned indicators of success of studies, while the differences are conditioned by certain type of studies. The second part of the hypothesis regarding the discriminate function, student success and evaluation of the adequacy of the choice of studies has not been confirmed.

Conclusion

Quality indicators considered in the research have according to expressed coherence confirmed that students evaluate the quality of their studies in accordance with theoretical approach advocated by participatory epistemology which is, from the angle of contemporary philosophy of knowledge, considered to be in the function of realization of emancipatory potentials of students. This is recognized in the importance given to acquisition of study programs, realization of one’s own development, harmonization of personal value system with the welfare of social progress, being equipped for practical application of what has been learnt, being trained for independent learning and innovativeness. As a consequence, a conclusion could be made that the paths of moving towards the culture of quality of learning could take a direction towards the improvement of quality dimensions, like those dealt with in this paper, since they are heading towards knowledge acquisition, the need to develop creative potentials, flexible knowledge structures, creativity, critical attitude in observation, thinking, learning and problem solving, risk taking readiness…these are the abilities expected to be components of the competences expected in the conditions of highly competitive global market (Eberhardt 2010: 39). So it could be concluded that the quality of higher education teaching has in the research been considered according to the evaluation of the level of realization of essential indicators; this does not exclude the possibility to involve other dimensions encompassed by other approaches to considerations of quality, as consequences of differences between theoretical frameworks (openness, measurability and mobility, efficacy, righteousness, regularity, sustainability, coherence…). What can be acknowledged, according to the observed dimensions of quality of higher education, is the way of defining, i.e. determining the essence and the phenomenon of education quality, the ways we expect to drive and encourage quality improvement, dimensions according to which the general level of education system quality could be raised. It is also possible to conclude that this is the way to consider contribution of higher education to more comprehensive self-observation and self-reflexive, self-managed learning which should ensure freedom of action of a personality according to modern philosophical discussions leading towards creation of competencies expected in contemporary working and social context; from the standpoint of modern philosophy, they are considered to be in the function of realization of emancipatory potential of students; this is in favour of the viewpoint that the ways heading towards the “culture of learning” as an indicator of higher education quality are to be found in emancipatory higher education didactics (Gojkov & Stojanovic 2011: 230).

What is indicative among the findings is the expression of discriminant function of quality indicators in the case of vocational students (.650) and academic students (-.440). The students enrolled at academic studies have given more importance to being trained for application of knowledge, while this relation is in their case reverse in view of being equipped for independent, i.e. self-learning. This might be explained as a consequence of the type of studies, i.e. noticed difference between vocational and academic studies, which, in case such a finding were confirmed by subsequent studies, would be in favour of both types of studies, i.e. all the efforts to more clearly articulate academic and differentiate them from vocational studies, having in mind that there is still an ongoing discussion on the matter in professional circles. Finally, it might be argued that the observed indicators are the guidelines for creation of the concept leading to higher quality of learning culture.

 

References:

  1. Antonijević, R., (2012), Procenjivanje efikasnosti u obrazovanju u: Posebna pitanja kvaliteta u obrazovanju ( ured. N. Vujisić i dr.), Beograd, Filozofski fakultet, 25-43.
  2. Bojović, Ž., ( 2012), Kvalitet obrazovanja studenata i savremeni univerzitet, u: Obrazovanje i savremeni univerzitet, Niš,Filozofski fakultet, 36-44.
  3. Đermanov,J, Kostović,S.,(2006): Evropski okvir kvaliteta školskog obrazovanja, ur.O.Gajić u: Evropske dimenzije promena obrazovnog sistema u Srbiji; zbornik radova, knj. 1, N. Sad: Filozofski fakultet, Odsek za pedagogiju, 251-262.
  4. Đukić,M.,(2002), Indikatori kvaliteta i evaluacija u sistemu visokog obrazovanja, Novi Sad: Pedagoška stvarnost,7-8, Savez pedagoških društava Vojvodine, 508-517.
  5. Đurišić-Bojanović,M.,(2008), Multikulturalnost i multiperspktivnost u obrazovanju; u J.Šefer,S.Joksimović i S. Maksić(prir.): Uvažavanje različitosti i obrazovanje, Beograd; Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, 45-71
  6. Eberhardt,U.,(Hrsg.),(2010), Neue Impulse in der Hochschuldidaktik, VS Verlag, 231
  7. Gojkov,G. i A. Stojanović (2011), Participativna epistemologija u didaktici, Vršac , VVŠ, 467.
  8. Stančić, M.(2012), Traganja za kbvalitetom u obrazovanju-kako smo podigli fizozofska sidra i nasukali se u plitkim vodama politike,u: Posebna pitanja kvaliteta u obrazovanju, Beograd, Filozofski fakultet  Institut za pedagogiju i andragogiju, 271-289
  9. Tunijnman,A. S.,Batani,N. (1994): Monitoring the Standards of Educations , Pergamon, London.
  10. Vlahović,B. (1969), Upravljanje inovacijama u obrazovanju, CURO, Beograd, 256.

 


[1]e-mail: g_gojkov@open.telekom.rs

[2]The text is written within the project No 179010 financed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia for the period 2010-2014. 

Комментарии: 13

Березная-Демиденко Валентина

Интересный, научно обоснованный доклад. Спасибо

Панфилова Альвина Павловна

10/01/2013 - 12.40 - Альвина Павловна Уважаемый автор, пыталась разобраться в тексте, но компьютерный перевод не позволил сделать это основательно. Однако считаю, что анализ проблем, связанных с вопросами качества образования, всегда был и будет актуальным и особенно привлекательна технология обратной связи, когда анализируют качество не только те, кто руководит образовательным процессом, но и сами студенты. Заметно, что культура исследования достаточно высокая, что позволило получить практически полезный материал, который позволит совершенствовать или искать пути совершенствования процесс обучения. Желаю успехов в развитии этой сложной проблемы, С уважением, Альвина Павловна

Игропуло Ирина Федоровна

Уважаемый Grozdanka Gojkov! Благодарю за интересный и содержательный доклад. Вы предоставили нам возможность сравнить тенденции оценки качества образования в Сербии и России с учетом общеевропейских требований. Перевод статьи не позволяет уяснить детали в полной мере, продолжу обязательно более внимательное ее изучение. Вам искренне желаю новых успехов и новых интересных статей. С уважением, И.Ф. Игропуло

Гиптерс Зинаида Васильевна

Поздравляю автора с ценным исследованием. В работе показаны различные пути и формы в подготовке студентов, что важно для современного "конкурентоспособного всемирного рынка". Подчеркивается необходимость развивать творческий потенциал, критическое отношение в исследовании, используя проблемное изложение, гибкие структуры знания, развивая способности студентов. И будут, как полагает автор, ожидаемые результаты: компоненты компетентности. Желаю дальнейших успехов. С уважением, З. В. Гиптерс.

Gojkov, Grozdanka

Поштовани колега, хвала за подршку. У Србији има мало података о стратегијама учења наших студија који су након примене Болоњског процеса прихватили другачије приступе учењу и по мојој оцени труде се више да меморишу, како ја то називам "компјутерски меморишу", без довољно удубљивања у садржаје, без критичког приступа, а креативност се још реже среће. Ако имате неко истраживање на које ме можете упутити, бићу Вам захвална, јер се и даље бавим истим питањем. Хвала још једном за подршку. Грозданка Гојков

Нестеренко Константин Михайлович

Работа очень интересная. Факты убедительны. Заслуживает хорошей оценки. Дальнейших Вам творческих успехов! С уважением, К. Нестеренко.

Саносян Хачатур

Уважаемый коллега, спасибо за статью.С уважением Хачатур Саносян

Лаврентьева Зоя Ивановна

В настоящее время идут споры о показателях эффективности вузов. В вашей статье показаны качественные показатели, что вносит существенный вклад в определение критериев эффективности. Очень интересно, что студенты сами оценивают степень инновационности знаний. Статья актуальна и полезна. Желаю успехов.

Федина Владимира

З досвіду вищої освіти Сербії можна багато чого почерпнути для української освіти.

Stepanova Anastasia

Доклад интересный!

Gojkov, Grozdanka

Поштована колегинице, хвала за овако охрабеујуће мишљење о налазима овога истраживања. Грозданка Гојков

Искак Наби

Уважаемый автор! Компьютерный перевод не дал возможности полностью понять мысли автора, но в целом можно утверждать, что полученные результаты очень интересны. Желаю дальнейших успехов в Ваших исследованиях

Gojkov, Grozdanka

Поштовани колега, хвала за добре жеље у погледу успеха у мојим дањим истраживањима. Ово је поље у нашој земљи још увек недовољно сагледано. Прихватили смо Болоњску деклатрацију и високо образовање настојалис аовим да ускладимо. Нажалост, мој је утисак да су извршене само структурне промене, а квалите не само да није бољи, него је слабији. На томе још пуно истраживања треба. Срдачан поздрав из Србије. Грозданка Гојков
Комментарии: 13

Березная-Демиденко Валентина

Интересный, научно обоснованный доклад. Спасибо

Панфилова Альвина Павловна

10/01/2013 - 12.40 - Альвина Павловна Уважаемый автор, пыталась разобраться в тексте, но компьютерный перевод не позволил сделать это основательно. Однако считаю, что анализ проблем, связанных с вопросами качества образования, всегда был и будет актуальным и особенно привлекательна технология обратной связи, когда анализируют качество не только те, кто руководит образовательным процессом, но и сами студенты. Заметно, что культура исследования достаточно высокая, что позволило получить практически полезный материал, который позволит совершенствовать или искать пути совершенствования процесс обучения. Желаю успехов в развитии этой сложной проблемы, С уважением, Альвина Павловна

Игропуло Ирина Федоровна

Уважаемый Grozdanka Gojkov! Благодарю за интересный и содержательный доклад. Вы предоставили нам возможность сравнить тенденции оценки качества образования в Сербии и России с учетом общеевропейских требований. Перевод статьи не позволяет уяснить детали в полной мере, продолжу обязательно более внимательное ее изучение. Вам искренне желаю новых успехов и новых интересных статей. С уважением, И.Ф. Игропуло

Гиптерс Зинаида Васильевна

Поздравляю автора с ценным исследованием. В работе показаны различные пути и формы в подготовке студентов, что важно для современного "конкурентоспособного всемирного рынка". Подчеркивается необходимость развивать творческий потенциал, критическое отношение в исследовании, используя проблемное изложение, гибкие структуры знания, развивая способности студентов. И будут, как полагает автор, ожидаемые результаты: компоненты компетентности. Желаю дальнейших успехов. С уважением, З. В. Гиптерс.

Gojkov, Grozdanka

Поштовани колега, хвала за подршку. У Србији има мало података о стратегијама учења наших студија који су након примене Болоњског процеса прихватили другачије приступе учењу и по мојој оцени труде се више да меморишу, како ја то називам "компјутерски меморишу", без довољно удубљивања у садржаје, без критичког приступа, а креативност се још реже среће. Ако имате неко истраживање на које ме можете упутити, бићу Вам захвална, јер се и даље бавим истим питањем. Хвала још једном за подршку. Грозданка Гојков

Нестеренко Константин Михайлович

Работа очень интересная. Факты убедительны. Заслуживает хорошей оценки. Дальнейших Вам творческих успехов! С уважением, К. Нестеренко.

Саносян Хачатур

Уважаемый коллега, спасибо за статью.С уважением Хачатур Саносян

Лаврентьева Зоя Ивановна

В настоящее время идут споры о показателях эффективности вузов. В вашей статье показаны качественные показатели, что вносит существенный вклад в определение критериев эффективности. Очень интересно, что студенты сами оценивают степень инновационности знаний. Статья актуальна и полезна. Желаю успехов.

Федина Владимира

З досвіду вищої освіти Сербії можна багато чого почерпнути для української освіти.

Stepanova Anastasia

Доклад интересный!

Gojkov, Grozdanka

Поштована колегинице, хвала за овако охрабеујуће мишљење о налазима овога истраживања. Грозданка Гојков

Искак Наби

Уважаемый автор! Компьютерный перевод не дал возможности полностью понять мысли автора, но в целом можно утверждать, что полученные результаты очень интересны. Желаю дальнейших успехов в Ваших исследованиях

Gojkov, Grozdanka

Поштовани колега, хвала за добре жеље у погледу успеха у мојим дањим истраживањима. Ово је поље у нашој земљи још увек недовољно сагледано. Прихватили смо Болоњску деклатрацију и високо образовање настојалис аовим да ускладимо. Нажалост, мој је утисак да су извршене само структурне промене, а квалите не само да није бољи, него је слабији. На томе још пуно истраживања треба. Срдачан поздрав из Србије. Грозданка Гојков
Партнеры
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.