Search
Warning: Undefined array key "476//" in /web/zanos/classes/Edit/EditForm_class.php on line 263
Warning: Undefined array key "476//" in /web/zanos/classes/Player/SearchArticle_class.php on line 261
# | Search | Downloads | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | In many modern universities, especially in research ones, the process of revising approaches and indicators for assessing the quality of teaching is now actively underway, which we propose to consider as innovative and, of course, progressive. The focus has shifted from actual assessing the quality of education to the assessment of teachers’ activity, which he performs or does not perform. In the event of non-compliance with indicators in elections, the lecturer is elected for a shorter term or not elected at all. These figures at a minimum reflect the quality of training in any assessment. In the election for the posts of teaching staff, a very narrow and very specific set of indicators of educational activity, primary to universities, is taken into account, among other things (consider the indicators on the example of research Tomsk State University): the number of qualified candidates and doctors of sciences; the number of dissertations prepared under the guidance of a teacher; the number of credits of courses taught in a foreign language, with the use of electronic resources, or, project, research; the number of prizes engaged by the students, leading teachers, competitions, contests, etc.; the management of basic educational programs. All these factors only indirectly indicate the quality of teaching. Thus, we can confidently say that in Tomsk scientific research universities there is a tendency to quasi-innovations in the evaluation of teaching, as organizational innovations contribute to the reduction of work time standards, increase in productivity, improve of the workflow, and psychological climate in the team. Organizational quasi-innovations can not produce such effects, on the contrary, they lead to conflicts, increase of working time norms, general dissatisfaction with the management and the injustice of the system of procedure election to the office, as well as the loss of qualified personnel. Keywords: quality of teaching, evaluation of teacher’s activity | 1016 |