CC BY
6of toxic free radicals of superoxide anion which is a product of aerobic metabolism.
So we can make a conclusion that mobilization of protective antioxidant mechanisms in the brain softens primary activation of lipid peroxidation. However it is followed by their further exhaustion that leads to destructive changes of nervous cells. That is why early determination, prevention and correction of secondary brain injury largely determine the results of treatment.
Conclusions.
1. In patients with mild brain contusion activation of free radical oxidation is most pronounced in five days after traumatic brain injury.
2. On the first day of trauma there is expressed activation of protective antioxidant factors (increased activity of catalase, content of ceruloplasmin, SH-groups, glutathione). The dynamic observation has shown gradual decrease of antioxidant activity.
Attention is drawn to the need of the further study of biochemical processes that lead to irreversible changes in nervous tissue, as well as development and
implementation of the drugs for correction of energetic metabolism and protection against secondary destruction of the cells.
References
1. R.J. Swatzyna, The elusive nature of mild traumatic brain injury, Biofeedback, Vol. 37, Issue 3 (2009) 92-95.
2. M. Prins, T. Greco, D. Alexander, C.C. Giza, The pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury at a glance, Dis Model Mech, 6 (2013) 1307-1315.
3. A. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, J.J. Egea-Guerro, F. Murillo-Cabezas, A. Carillo-Vico, Oxidative stress in traumatic brain injury, Curr Med Chem, 21(10) (2014) 1201-11.
4. A.M. Arent, L.F. de Souza, R. Walz, A.L. Dafre, Rerspectives on molecular biomarkers of oxida-tive stress and antioxidant strategies in traumatic brain injury, BioMed Research International, 2014(2014), Article ID 723060, 18 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/723060.
CRITERIA OF RANKING OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS
Zhukovskyi O.
Higher State Educational Establishment of Ukraine "Bukovinian State medical University ",
Chernivtsi, Ukraine
ABSTRACT
The article determines the main criteria and indicators considered in compiling University ratings. The most authoritative world (Webometrics ranking, Shanghai ranking, Academic ranking, Times University ranking) and Ukrainian ("Compass", "Top-200 Ukraine", "Ukrainian University Ranking" (The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine), SciVerse Scopus, by the version of the journal «Correspondent») university rankings are characterized.
Keywords: ranking, university ranking, academic ranking, Webometrics ranking.
Problem statement. Nowadays rankings have become very popular. The customers are interested in them, and irrespective of the attitude of certain universities or other organizations to them they are impossible to be avoided. The Institute of Higher Education Strategy and UNESKO European Center in the sphere of higher education organized several important international forums. In 2004 the Forum held in Washington established the International Expert Group to determine university ranking - International Ranking Experts Group (IREG). IREG activity includes a careful examination of ranking assessment in university work, elaboration of procedures and approaches to evaluation of ranking systems available, making international comparative analysis etc.
Transparency of higher education today is a society challenge, reputation and necessity. A step to solve the issues concerning improvement of the quality of higher education is introduction of external and internal monitoring of higher education quality and presentation of the results of monitoring in the frame of ranking of higher educational institutions [3, p. 271-272].
A characteristic feature of higher education at the present stage is introduction of ranking of higher educational institutions (HEI). Today there are approximately ten HEI rankings in the world. Traditionally American and English universities are on top of rankings [2, p. 48].
The use of higher educational institutions rating/ranking is necessary for applicants in order to choose a higher educational institution, for the higher
educational institution authority - to manage effectively, for employers - to select high quality working resources, for the governments and politicians - to form a stable standard-legal base and provide an adequate market of educational services and labour market. Therefore, ranking system should satisfy all the customers of educational services and organizers of higher education.
The ranking pattern of higher education system is a certain reflection of a real state in which it is functioning at a certain moment. On the basis of analysis of functional branches in the university activity ten summarizing topical directions are determined in the ranking pattern: presentation of achievements on the international level; presentation of achievements on the national level; access, organization structure and management; scientific-pedagogical potential; training of scientific and scientific-pedagogical staff; integration of higher education and science; effectiveness of training specialists; financial resources; information resources; educational and social infrastructure [3, p. 272-273].
At the present stage rankings are considered as a rather objective integral quality index in HEI activity. They enable to form an impartial image about the system of higher education; promote a healthy competition between universities, promote increase of the quality in their work, and considerably satisfy the needs of the labour market, applicants and their parents. Therefore, improvement of the ranking methods has actually become a world tendency, and the main studies are con-
ducted in order to create the most real, objective, accurate and effective reflection of the higher education quality.
The most authoritative world rankings are Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times ranking, ranking of the journal U.S. News & World Report and Webometrics rankings [4, p. 8-9].
The first university ranking in the world was the one compiled in June 2003 by the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai University (China) - «Ranking of World Class Universities», or Shanghai ranking [1, p. 313]. The primary purpose of ranking was to assess lagging level of Chinese universities from those of the world leading universities. After this ranking was reported it got a number of positive opinions, and nowadays it is considered one of the most authoritative and relative world HEI rankings [6, p. 103].
ARWU ranking is based on the following criteria and indicators:
• quality of education (total load 10 %), determined by the number of graduates who has become the Nobel Prize winners, awarded with medals in certain fields of knowledge (for example, medals of the International Mathematical Union, etc.);
• level of teachers (total load 40 %) considered by the two constituents: a) the number of teachers who are the Nobel Prize winners, and those awarded with special awards in certain fields of knowledge (20 %); 6) citation index in scientific publications in 21 subject category of ISI Highly Cited version (20 %);
• results of scientific researches (40 %), determined by the amount of scientific articles published in prestigious academic scientific journals of the world («Nature», «Science», etc.) in recent 5 years, the number of articles with high citation index in natural and social sciences;
• so-called «academic density» of the university (10 %), determined by the ratio of the total score on the above indices to the number of academic staff of fulltime job.
Unfortunately, none of the Ukrainian universities is found among 500 best universities of Shanghai ranking, or 200 best universities of Times ranking [1, p. 314-315]. According to QS World University Rankings 2014/15, HEI of Ukraine were distributed by the following positions in the ranking: Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (421-430), V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (481-490), National Technical University of Ukraine "Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" (551-600), Sumy State University (651-700), Donetsk National University (701+), National Technical University "Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute" (701+) [7]. Webometrics ranking of world's universities has been used actively as well. It is one of the rankings according to which the university activity is analyzed in the Internet. Webometrics is a branch of informatics within the frame of which quantitative aspects of constructing and application of information resources, structures and technologies concerning World Wide Web are examined. The term was introduced by Thomas Almind and Peter Ingwersen in 1997. The ranking has been compiled since 2004 and published twice a year (June-July and January). It is compiled by the «Cybermetrics Lab» of the «Spanish National Research Council» (CSIC), acting at the Ministry of Science and Innovations of Spain. The process of compiling Webometrics ranking differs considerably from
Shanghai ranking and QS-THES ranking. By means of this ranking, HEIs are compared by the degree of filling of their official Internet-sites. Publication of ranking is an additional motivation to publish more scientific works in the Internet, which makes it available for scientific community irrespective of its territorial location [2, p. 48-49].
Webometrics ranking is calculated according to the following indicators:
• the amount of printed Internet-pages - 25 %;
• the number of files in pdf, ps, doc and pps format - 12,5 %;
• the number of articles entered in the Academic data base (Google Scholar Database) - 12,5 %;
• the total amount of external references - 5 % [1, p. 315].
The suggested criteria and principles of Webometrics ranking should stimulate the motivation of both HEI and its separate staff members to continuous, systematic and available presence in the Internet. The authors of the ranking system believe it reflects their activity and achievements completely [6, p. 109].
In the world and European educational space ranking systems have become widely used and applied in different spheres of economic, social, political activities. Ranking assessment of the higher educational institutions activity of all the forms of property in Ukraine is an integral constituent of the national monitoring of higher education. In Ukraine a considerable work has been conducted considering development and improvement of different methods in HEI ranking. Every ranking system assumes certain purposes and possesses appropriate target groups of users [2, p. 49-50].
The largest ranking systems in Ukraine are the following:
Ukrainian HEI ranking «Compass»;
Ukrainian Universities ranking «Top-200 Ukraine»;
«Ukrainian Universities ranking» (the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine);
Ukrainian HEI ranking according to the scien-tometric data base SciVerse Scopus;
Ukrainian best HEI ranking by the version of the journal «Correspondent».
It should be noted that situation in the world of international rankings of leading universities is changing. In 2011 Multi-Dimensional Global University Ranking was established, made to the order of the European Commission. In recent times, the European ranking of the world universities U-Multirank is being elaborated. Soon it will be tested in a pilot mode. It was preceded by the elaboration of HEI classification system U-map, which enables to compare really commensurable universities [6, p. 112-113]. Though, the fact remains that these ranking systems have become influential factors in the formation of the global educational system [1, p. 315].
Conclusions. Having analyzed the term «ranking» and determined the main criteria and indicators considered in the compiling university ranking systems, the most authoritative world and Ukrainian university rankings are characterized. The analysis is indicative of the fact that introduction of the world university rankings in the system of providing quality of higher education promotes improvement and implementation of substantial changes concerning criteria and indicators of the Ukrainian university rankings. It is obvious that
the experience of application of the indicators and criteria of the world university rankings is essential for improvement, specification, accurate definition and modification of approaches, methodology, criteria and indices while compiling Ukrainian university rankings. It is this peculiarity that can become an important factor enabling Ukrainian universities to enter the first hundreds of the leading world universities in the nearest future.
References
1. Kurbatov S. Universytetsjki rejtynghy jak in-dykator stanu osvity / S. Kurbatov // Filosofija osvity. - 2008. - № 1-2(7). - S. 309-317.
2. Lunjachek V.E. Osnovy pedaghoghiky vyshhoji shkoly : navch. posib. / V.E. Lunjachek. - Kh.: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 2014. - 252 s.
3. Pavlova O.Ju. Kuljturna integhracija vitchyzn-janykh zakladiv vyshhoji osvity do Jevropejsjkogho osvitnjogho seredovyshha / O.Ju. Pavlova, T.F. Mel-jnychuk, T.M. Mysjura. - K.: KIM, 2012. - 298 s.
4. Podoljanchuk S. Naukova skladova u svitovykh rejtynghakh universytetiv / S. Podoljanchuk // Vyshha shkola. - 2012. - № 5. - S. 7-19.
5. Prykhodjko V.V. Strateghija reformy nacion-aljnoji vyshhoji shkoly: monoghrafija / V.V. Prykhodjko. - Dnipropetrovsjk : Zhurfond, 2014. -460s.
6. Tatarinov I. Je. Svitova praktyka formuvannja rejtynghiv universytetiv: vyznachennja najbiljsh ob'jektyvnykh kryterijiv ta indykatoriv ocinjuvannja / I.Je. Tatarinov, O.V. Gherasymov // Ukrajinsjkyj so-cium. - 2013. - № 1 (44). - S. 100-116.
7. QS World University Rankings® 2014/15 [El-ektronnyi resurs]. - Rezhym dostupu: http://www. topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-univer-sity-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=140 +coun-try=203+faculty=+stars=false+search=
8. Zaghirnjak M.V. Ranzhuvannja u vyshhij osviti
- nacionaljnyj dosvid ta perspektyvy rozvytku [El-ektronnyi resurs] / M.V. Zaghirnjak, S.A. Serghijenko.
- Rezhym dostupu: http://ees.kdu.edu.ua/ wp-con-tent/uploads/2013/04/83 .pdf
ЛЕПКА КАК СРЕДСТВО РАЗВИТИЯ ТВОРЧЕСКОГО ВООБРАЖЕНИЯ У ДЕТЕЙ СТАРШЕГО
ДОШКОЛЬНОГО ВОЗРАСТА
Бабич А.А.,
Хакасский государственный университет им. Н.Ф. Катанова, Абакан Жуйкова Т.П.
Хакасский государственный университет им. Н.Ф. Катанова, Абакан
MODELING AS A MEANS OF DEVELOPING CREATIVE IMAGINATION IN OLDER
PRESCHOOLERS
Babich A.,
Khakass state University named after N.F. Katanov, Abakan
Zhuikova T.
Khakass state University named after N.F. Katanov, Abakan
АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье предлагается анализ опытно-экспериментальной работы по использованию лепки как средства развития творческого воображения у детей старшего дошкольного возраста.
ABSTRACT
The article offers an analysis of experimental work on the use of modeling as a means of developing creative imagination in children of senior preschool age.
Ключевые слова: лепка, воображение, творческое воображение, дети старшего дошкольного возраста.
Keywords: modeling, imagination, creative imagination, senior preschool children.
Изучение вопросов развития воображения и творческих способностей учащихся на сегодняшний день приобрели особую актуальность, что связано с тем, что информатизация общества в большой степени снижает уровень интеллектуальной активности ребенка, в особенности в области творчества. Наличие большого количества игровых приложений, компьютерных программ для обработки уже существующего материала, наличие большого ассортимента игрушек в магазинах - все это приводит к отсутствию необходимости воображать и творить. Ребенку не требуется выдумывать себе игрушки, они уже рекламируются по телевизору, ему не надо что-либо мастерить, все прода-
ется уже готовым. Однако, для полноценного развития личности творческая деятельность является одной из основополагающих для приобретения навыков адаптации в новых условиях.
Исследованием процесса формирования и совершенствования воображения исследовались многими учеными, среди которых Л.С. Выготский, О.М. Дьяченко, С.Л. Рубинштейн, Г.А. Урунтаева и другие. При этом О.В. Дыбина, Т.С. Комарова, И.А. Сакулина рассматривали необходимость развития творческой деятельности и воображения в повседневной жизни ребенка.
Воспроизведение окружающего мира для ребенка возможно только посредством умственного
