CC BY
31
LIFELONG EDUCATION OF THE TEACHING STAFF AS A STRATEGY FOR MODERNIZING THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
V. G. Ivanov V. N. Kuzmenkova
The mechanism of advanced training and lifelong education of the teaching staff in all higher education establishments is put into practice in full compliance with the Federal Law "On Higher and Post-graduate Professional Education”. It is prescribed by law that teachers should go through advanced training at least once every five years, which is the major criterion of the continuity of this process. The law stipulates the following types of mandatory lifelong education: postgraduate studies, doctoral studies, pedagogical internship in the leading educational institutions, full-time off-site professional internship, etc. We believe that it is reasonable to extend the list of these types of lifelong education offered by law by including such forms as "Schools for improvement of pedagogical skills”, "Schools for young teachers”, participation in all-Russia inter-academic conferences and seminars, and participation in intra-academic conferences and seminars within the home university into the system of lifelong education. It is known that the above mentioned types of activities of higher education institutions are hardly financed through the federal budget, therefore the teachers choose one or another form of lifelong education themselves, finding unconventional innovative forms where, as they believe, they receive a different quality of the informational and educational system of knowledge and practical skills for their professional activity.
Nowadays a fixed list of the main forms of lifelong education of teaching staffs has taken shape: (a) participation in inter-academic conferences and seminars; (b) participation in intra-academic conferences and seminars; (c) participation in innovative pedagogical projects; (d) full-time off-site courses of advanced training; (e) sabbatical leave; (f) business trips to training facilities and scientific centers; (g) curriculum development, etc. However, the variety of lifelong education forms can not be regarded as proof of their efficacy, because on the one hand this variety does not reflect teachers’ real demand for improving their pedagogical skills, and on the other hand the performance and adaptation of these forms are uncertain. Consequently, for many higher education institutions the main problem is to determine the institution’s demand for lifelong education of its teaching staff, and advanced training of teachers as a particular case of it.
292
Teachers’ opinion polls (held once or twice a year) can provide information about the need for advanced training. We offer a brief but profound questionnaire structure for determining the needs and preferences regarding the system of lifelong education and advanced training. In particular the following questions were introduced1: "Last time period of advanced training?”; “Preference for on-site or off-site advanced training?”; “Preference for international or national systems of lifelong education and advanced training?”; “Preference for traditional types of academic studies in the system of lifelong education and advanced training (lectures, tutorials)?”; “Drive for active methods of conducting classes (trainings, role playing, situational pedagogical tasks, pedagogical cases etc)?”; “Drive for information technologies of teaching (electronic cases, “project management”, electronic presentations, creating an electronic manual, etc.)”; “Intensity of studies in the system of lifelong education and advanced training?”. Apart from the above-mentioned indicators of the demand for lifelong education, it is worthwhile to analyze the potential contingent according to the following criteria: gender and age (difference in age and gender groups); qualification (groups representing different academic degrees and ranks); and subject (based on groups of academic disciplines - liberal arts, information systems, mathematics, general professional disciplines etc). An expanded model of demand for lifelong education can be implemented as per all proposed criteria considering the following factors: firstly, an evaluation of the estimated level of required qualification (in terms of departments and specializations); secondly, an evaluation of the achieved level and required level of pedagogical skills of the teaching staff; thirdly, an evaluation of the level of professional (methodical and pedagogical) qualification of the teaching staff. Apart from the direct methods of determining the demand for lifelong education, there are also indirect methods which can display it accurately.
Two major ways (schemes) of determining the demand for lifelong education of the teaching staff were empirically developed and tested in many higher education institutions: the first one is monitoring students’ opinions about the quality of teaching, and monitoring teachers’ opinions about the quality of the studies in the Schools for improvement of pedagogical skills.
1 The authors of the questionnaire are: V.G. Ivanov, Associate Professor of the Human Recourses Department, PhD in Economics (Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin) and I.A. Sijalova, Associate Professor, Director of the Advanced Training Center (Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin), PhD in Pedagogics. The questionnaire was developed for students of the Advanced Training Center and was tested in the branches of the University in the towns of Volosovo and Slantsy.
293
The questionnaire "Teachers as viewed by students”1 was modernized for implementation of the first scheme. The main feature of the new survey technique (the author is V. G. Ivanov, Associate Professor of the Human Resources Department) is taking a multi-criteria approach to the assessment of the quality of teaching2. The assessment system suggests that the following quality factors are rated on a scale from one to ten: (a) comprehensible and logical delivery; (b) culture of speech; (c) ability to arouse interest in the subject; (d) creative approach; (e) respect towards students; (f) general education. These indicators reflect the quality of teaching to the full extent. Processing the survey results suggests calculating the average index for every individual factor, and also the calculation of the integral average score (average index on a scale from one to five) for all six factors together. Such a system of factors makes it possible: firstly - to determine the strengths and weaknesses in the pedagogical activity of each particular teacher and exert every effort to improve different aspects of this activity (pedagogical, methodological, socio-cultural); secondly - to range the departments according to the cumulative (joint) teaching quality indexes and perform a comparative analysis of "strong” and "weak” departments; thirdly - evaluation of the results of the survey on students’ opinion about the quality of teaching will help to outline the "problem” groups of teachers, i.e. those who have low level of teaching quality; fourthly - short listing teachers according to their teaching quality level gives grounds for obligatory (but not mandatory) enrollment in groups of advanced training.
The second way of determining the demand for lifelong education of teaching staff reveals the profound characteristics of lifelong education programs. For implementation of this scheme it is necessary to monitor teachers’ opinion about the needs for choosing the training topics of the academic program in the system of lifelong education. Schools for improvement of pedagogical skills can be a specific component of the University lifelong education program.
All the training topics in the system of lifelong education offered in the selective poll were grouped into informative sections, which according to the ideologists of lifelong education can become a sound foundation for Schools for improvement of pedagogical skills. Moreover, these sections can be presented in the form of modules so that teachers can choose
1 The questionnaire structure was worked out by the Federal Education Agency for practical use in higher education institutions of Russia.
2 As a mechanism of evaluating the quality of teaching, the questionnaire is used in many higher education institutions of Saint-Petersburg, including Saint-Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance.
294
themselves. The following five sections turned out to be the most indemand: (1) technologies of professionally-oriented education; (2) informational technologies in science and education; (3) high school psychology; (4) high school pedagogy; (5) professionally-oriented training. Each section can be developed using certain training topics of the lifelong education program.
Initiation of such system for Schools for improvement of pedagogical skills in a higher education institution would show on the one hand the feasibility of the modernization strategy of a higher education institution, and on the other hand would be a great experience for putting the idea of lifelong education into practice. There is also a third aspect of the issue: if implemented, the idea of Schools for improvement of pedagogical skills could become a great stimulus motivating the teaching staff of the university to improve their professional competency. All in all studying at such a School can be focused on the following areas of university teachers’ professional activity in terms of lifelong education: (a) improving the professional competency of university teachers with regard to methodological, psychological, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills and abilities; (b) mastering modern technologies, forms and methods of teaching; (c) mastering forms and methods of mentoring university students; (d) developing the speech culture as a constituent of the general education of a teacher; (e) development of teacher’s informational culture as an element of professional competency; (f) development of professional skills for personal, business and professional communication, etc.
295
