GSPI-QA of Teaching Staff-Eng-For ANQA

7/31/2019 GSPI-QA of Teaching Staff-Eng-For ANQA

1/51

Gyumri State Pedagogical Institute

Self-assessment


2/51

Main actorsTemporary QA Committee of Scientific Board

Established Sep 2011

Members 7 Supervised by Vice-Rector on Research and

External Affairs

Since Sep 2011 almost 50 Regulations on

university policy and procedures aredeveloped (and approved by Scientific Board)


3/51

Main actorsCenter for Quality Assurance Established Sep 2011 Permanent full time staff - 3 University self-assessment will be carried out

with the help of groups within correspondingfaculty/department including 1 student ineach group (6 groups)

In some specific cases (e.g. strategic planningon university level) well shape temporarygroups (engaging other experts)


4/51

RECTOR

QA Committee

of Scientific Board

QA Center

Faculty QA

Group1

Faculty QA

Group2 Faculty QA

Group 6


5/51

Starting from 2010 GSPI participates inDIUSUS and PICQA programs in theframeworks of TEMPUS program of EuropeanUnion.

In the framework of DIUSUS program it isplanned that GSPI, as a program contributionshould conduct self-analysis of teaching staff

(ESG Standard #4)


6/51

Quality assurance of teaching staff Institutions should have ways of satisfying

themselves that staff involved with theteaching of students are qualified andcompetent to do so.

They should be available to thoseundertaking external reviews, and

commented upon in reports.


7/51

Quality assurance of teaching staff

The following components are analyzed

Regulatory basis Statistics

Surveys


8/51

ESG guideline Ensuring knowledge, necessary skills and

experience of teaching staff

Regulation for Development ofTeaching Staffeffective on 26 May 2012

Main points:

Nomenclature of teaching staff positions Qualitative Criteria for positions

Recruitment options and procedures


9/51

ESG guideline Ensuring the minimum necessary level of

competence of new staff A new Regulation on this issue is under

consideration of QA Committee of Scientific

Board. Will be finalized and will beeffective on Sep 1, 2012

Main points: New staff will be given a 1 semester probation period Class auditingand performance assessment by

department Assessmentbased on anonymous evaluation by students

and colleagues All lectures and teaching materials should be available

online by the start of academic year


10/51

ESG guideline Ensuring development of teaching capacity

and encouraging to value teaching staff skills. Differentiated System of

Supplementary Payments for EncouragingResearch and Methodical Activitieseffective on Jan 1, 2012

Main points:

Assigning bonus unitsfor activities (publication,dissertation, etc) Payment will be made once a year for units earned

during that year


11/51

A new Regulation In-service Trainingof Teaching Staff is under consideration. Willbe finalized on Dec 2012

Main points: All faculty must undergo regular mandatory in-

service training and accumulate Credit units withinevery 5 years

Poor faculty could be assigned shorter period


12/51

ESG guideline Ensuring a)opportunities for poor teachers to

improve their skills and b)means to removedemonstrably ineffective teachers from teaching

duties Basis: Regulation is under development

Main points: Developing a system of regular (or on-demand)

in-service training of teaching staff

Decision on poor teachers further staffing based onannual staff performance assessment derived froma)anonymous evaluation by students and colleagues andb)critical evaluation of annual plans performance


13/51

STUDENTS Number of Students -3266*

Bachelor 1606

Master - 192* PhD - 67

Correspondence education 1660*

Student/teacher ratio 12:1

Without department of correspondenceeducation - 6:1*

*without first year students


14/51

TEACHING STAFF TOTALS Total teaching staff - 284

Main faculty - 265 (93%)

Short-time faculty* 19 (7%)

Average chair 11 faculty members

Extras

Eng.&Germ.(30), Arm.lang. and History (22) Phil., Music, Ecology, Rus.lit. (6-4)

*From schools, research institutions and industry


15/51

31

22

22

17

14

12

121212

11

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

87 6

6 5 4

Eng. & Germ. Arm. lang. History Biology

Psycology Rus. lang. Pedagogy Computer Science

Sport Pedagogy Phys. training Math. analys. Chemistry

Pre-school Ped. Arm. liter. French lang. Physics

Algebra Geography Polit. & Econ. Fine arts

Mil. training Engineer. Philos. Music

Ecology Rus. lit.


16/51

25 29 20 8%

30 39 74 28%

40 49 46 17%50 59 50 19%

60 69 55 21%

70 79 17 6%

80 83 3 1%


17/51

2529

8%3039

28%

4049

17%

5059

19%

6069

21%

7079

6%

8083

1%


18/51

UP TO 39 94 36%

40+ 171 64%

50+ 125 47%

60+ 75 28%


19/51

ANALYSIS The most worrying indicator is that 2529 age

group is small - 8% (20 people) This means that there are serious problems with

the teaching staff reproduction Positive indicator - relatively big share of 3039

age group - 28% (74 people) But on the other hand 60 + group has actually

the same number (75 people) Next few years it is necessary to institute a

retirement supplement with about 70 facultymembers (almost 1/3 of teaching staff - 28%)

This is an important issue that needs to beresolved within the next several years.


20/51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ecology

Eng. & Germ.

Psycology

Pedagogy

Mil. training

History

Chemistry

Comp.Science

Math. analys.

Rus. lit.

French lang.

GeographyPolit. & Econ.

Sport Pedagogy

Arm. lang.Phys. training

Algebra

Biology

Pre-school Ped.

Physics

Arm. liter.

Rus. lang.

Fine arts

Music

Philos.

Engineer.


21/51

ANALYSIS Average age varies from 40 to 64

In 12 chairs (46%) average age is more than50, i.e. significant aging is underway

The picture will be more informative, if onetakes account the average absolute deviation(AAD)


22/51

ANALYSIS

When a highaverage ageis combined with a smallAAD this indicates that the teachers are of nearlysame age, i.e. there are no junior faculty members

This is a threat in terms of stability of the teaching

staff

Engineering 64 8Philosophy 60 4.6Music 57 7Physics 53 7.4


23/51

ANALYSIS

But when a small average age is combined with asmall AAD, in this case staff is stable.

Situation is satisfactory in chairs of Ecology andMilitary training

Average ages here are not only less thaninstitutes average (49 years), but also AAD aresmall, which in this case means that the teachersare mostly young

Ecology 40 5.5Military training 45 6.0


24/51

3022

19

16 1312 12

7

11 10

9

7

9

7

8 8

7

8 8 8 8

6 5

6 5 4

10

3

1 10 0

5

1 1

0

2

0

1

0 0

1

0 0 0 0

1 1

0 0 0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


25/51

Big ratio of short-time teaching staff at chairof Comp. Science (42%)

However in 14 chairs (more then half ofchairs) all staff is permanent

Enhance status of main, permanent staffby

increasing salaries and adding benefits(health insurance, recreation options - free orwith reduced prices)


26/51

Male

38%

Female

62%


27/51

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female

Male


28/51

Traditionally more women than men teach atGSPI

Only a few chairs (e.g. History, Fine arts,Geography) showa "gender equality"

In majority of chairs - no such equality

English, French, Russian language, Russianliterature, and Ecology chairs are almost fully

equipped with only female teachers Male teachers dominate in sports, military,

Physics and Computer science chairs


29/51

14

5%

125

47%

12648%

Doctor of Sciences -14

Candidate of Sciences - 125

Without Degrees - 126


30/51

62

4947

Doctor of Sciences PhD Without degrees


31/51

Near half of teachers dont have academicdegrees (48%)

Foreign languages, sport, military and finearts - 70% +

Small number of teachers with secondacademic degrees (5%)

Encourage teachers to pursue academicdegrees


32/51

Near half of teachers (48%) dont have anyacademic degrees

Only 35% of this contingent comprise youngteachers (under 40) and most of them are workingon their PhD thesis.

Thus, the majority of teachers dont have anyacademic degrees and at the same time they do notsee the need to purchase.

This problem can be solved gradually The following steps are offered to improve the

situation.


33/51

Currently the academic degree does not result in asignificant salary increase (only 5%). Accordinglynamely the staff with degrees should be the maintarget of salary raise.

b. When hiring new staff, preference will be given tocandidates with academic degrees

c. Teaching staff without degrees should typicallyhave only practical and laboratory classes and as a

rule teach only Bachelor students


34/51

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

There are relatively few (5%) teachers with 2ndlevel of academic degrees

Pursuing this degree requires much effort andcontribution in research

Full-time teaching job requires 750-800 hours ofteaching load annually.

This does not allow to perform research workrequired for doctoral dissertation within a

reasonable period of time


35/51

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

This problem is not solved by doctorantura- yetunsuccessful doctoral institution.

As a suggestion - to restore creative leaves thatwere in practice in Soviet education system.

But this will result in financial problems, needed tobe solved


36/51

1 1 1 1 01 2 1 1

0

1

0 0

1

0

1

0 0 0 0 0

1

0

1

0 0

6

12

12

66

8

2

4

23

7 7

4

6

2

7

56

4

2

1

3

2

1

43

23

9

6

9 7

3

8

2

8 7

10

5

0

6

0

22

4

6

7

2

34

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Doct. of Sci Cand. of Sci Without degree


37/51

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

3. The number of teachers with academic degreesare relatively low in chairs of Physical training,Military training, Fine Arts and Music (lessthen30%), which is conditioned by the peculiarities

of research activities in these sectors Only three chairs - Physics, Chemistry, and

Armenian literature are fully equipped withteaching staff with academic degrees

In contrast, the chair of English and Germanlanguages, has only 25% of the teaching staff withacademic degrees


38/51

Lecturer

Assistant professor

Associate professor

Professor

More or less direct link between degrees andpositions. As a rule:

Professor Doctor of Sciences Associate (assistant) professor PhD

Lecturer without academic degrees


39/51

12

5%

94

35%

21

8%

138

52%

Professor

Associate

Prof.

Assistant

Prof.

Lecturer


40/51

66

55 54

42

Professor Assoc. professor Assist. professor Lecturer


41/51

1. Most of faculty (52%) are on the lowest level(lecturer)

Nearly 4% of faculty members (20) are onlowest level while holding academic degrees

These are faculty members who recentlydefended PhD theses but havent yet got

promotion


42/51

2. The Associate professors (35%) constitutethe pillar of GSPI faculty.

The group is diverse

70 % are experienced faculty close toretirement age (50+)

Smaller group (30%) comprise junior faculty

who will assure stability of teaching staff


43/51

3. Small number of faculty on the position ofassistant professor (8%) which is probablydue to the fact that this is a kind of

intermediate position between assistant andassociate professor positions

In this respect, it is necessary to have a clearjob description of the position to justify itsexistence


44/51

Questionnaire for anonymous assessment ofteaching staff by students were developed Totally 18 questions with 4 possible answers

Students from 3 department assessed 11

teachers having classes in last semester Totally 225 students form departments of

Foreign languages, History and Philology,Physics and Math.

We analyzed the results of questionnaire not for

particular teachers, but average indicators fordifferent teachers, as we intended to reveal thefields that urgently need improvement


45/51

1. Comformity of course content and

curricula

10. The teachers creative approach

toward the subject.

2. Clarity of the course materialexplanation

11. The teachers interest towards thestudents success.

3. Your confidence in the teacher's

knowledge

12. The teachers respective attitude to

the students.

4. The teachers oral speech and

articulation

13. The teachers objectivity and

impartiality.5. The teacher keeps the material

interesting during the whole course.

14. To what extent the course promotes

your professional development?

6. Students are encouraged to ask

questions on the material.

15. To what extent the course promotes

your general development.

7. The quality of the answers given to thestudents questions.

16. Your willingness to participate inother courses by this teacher.

8. Effective time management by the

teacher.

17. Your involvement in the course

(questions and answers, etc.)

9. Provision of appropriate classroom

order by the teacher.

18. My entire course assessment


46/51

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Excellent Good Satisfactory Bad


47/51

The questions received maximumaverage votes for bad indicator (14+%of answers)

1. Students willingness to participateother courses lead by the same teacher(22% )

2. The teachers interest towards the

students success (16%).3. The teachers creative approach towardthe subject (14% )


48/51

Goaldisclose areas requiring improvement

Students willingness to participate other courseslead by the same teacher

The average deviations for these indicators arealso are near-maximum, meaning that differentteachers receive quiet different marks for theseindicators

Possible solutions: The question requiredclarification about courses whether these areelectivecourses or simply imaginativecourses


49/51

Goaldisclose areas requiring improvementThe teachers interest towards the students

successPossible solutions: Working towards a student-centered system Develop emotional ties with students Organize extracurricular activities, debates,

excursions,

Develop relationships with parents Certain information regarding the private live ofstudents


50/51

Goaldisclose areas requiring improvement

The teachers creative approach toward thesubject

Possible solutions: Increasing teachers level of mastery of the

subject, including the field of contemporarydevelopments in subject domain

Regular research activities conducted by theteacher

Involvement of students in research


51/51

Thank you for your attention

Questions???

Presenter: Gagik Demirjian,

Director of QA Center

Email:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

GSPI-QA of Teaching Staff-Eng-For ANQA