Gyumri State Pedagogical Institute

Self-assessment

Temporary 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 are developed (and approved by Scientific Board)

Main actors

Center for Quality Assurance

Main actors

Established Sep 2011 Permanent full time staff - 3 University self-assessment will be carried out with the help of groups within corresponding faculty/department including 1 student in each group (6 groups) In some specific cases (e.g. strategic planning on university level) well shape temporary groups (engaging other experts)

RECTOR

QA Committee of Scientific Board

QA Center

Faculty QA Group1

Faculty QA Group2

Faculty QA Group 6

Starting from 2010 GSPI participates in DIUSUS and PICQA programs in the frameworks of TEMPUS program of European Union. In the framework of DIUSUS program it is planned that GSPI, as a program contribution should conduct self-analysis of teaching staff (ESG Standard #4)

Quality assurance of teaching staff Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so. They should be available to those undertaking external reviews, and commented upon in reports.

Quality assurance of teaching staff

The following components are analyzed

Regulatory basis Statistics Surveys

ESG guideline

Ensuring knowledge, necessary skills and experience of teaching staff

Basis: Regulation for Development of Teaching Staff effective on 26 May 2012

Main points:

Nomenclature of teaching staff positions Qualitative Criteria for positions Recruitment options and procedures

ESG guideline

Ensuring the minimum necessary level of competence of new staff

Basis: A new Regulation on this issue is under consideration of QA Committee of Scientific Board. Will be finalized and will be effective on Sep 1, 2012

Main points:

New staff will be given a 1 semester probation period Class auditing and performance assessment by department Assessment based on anonymous evaluation by students and colleagues All lectures and teaching materials should be available online by the start of academic year

ESG guideline

Ensuring development of teaching capacity and encouraging to value teaching staff skills.
Basis1: Differentiated System of Supplementary Payments for Encouraging Research and Methodical Activities effective on Jan 1, 2012 Main points:

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

Basis2: A new Regulation In-service Training of Teaching Staff is under consideration. Will be finalized on Dec 2012 Main points:
All faculty must undergo regular mandatory inservice training and accumulate Credit units within every 5 years Poor faculty could be assigned shorter period

ESG guideline Ensuring a)opportunities for poor teachers to improve their skills and b)means to remove demonstrably 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 on annual staff performance assessment derived from a)anonymous evaluation by students and colleagues and b)critical evaluation of annual plans performance

STUDENTS Number of Students -3266* Bachelor 1606 Master - 192* PhD - 67 Correspondence education 1660* Student/teacher ratio 12:1 Without department of correspondence education - 6:1*

*without first year students

TEACHING STAFF TOTALS Total teaching staff - 284 Main faculty - 265 (93%) Short-time faculty* 19 (7%) Average chair 11 faculty members
Eng.&Germ.(30), Arm.lang. and History (22) Phil., Music, Ecology, Rus.lit. (6-4) *From schools, research institutions and industry

Extras

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9

6 5 4

31

22

22

17 14 12 11 12 12 12

Eng. & Germ. Psycology Sport Pedagogy Pre-school Ped. Algebra Mil. training Ecology

Arm. lang. Rus. lang. Phys. training Arm. liter. Geography Engineer. Rus. lit.

History Pedagogy Math. analys. French lang. Polit. & Econ. Philos.

Biology Computer Science Chemistry Physics Fine arts Music

AGE GROUP

NUMBER

PERCENTAGE

25 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 69 70 79 80 83

20 74 46 50 55 17 3
AVARAGE = 49 YEARS

8% 28% 17% 19% 21% 6% 1%

7079 8083 1% 6% 2529

6069
21%

8%

3039 28%

5059 19%

4049

17%

AGE GROUP

NUMBER

PERCENT

UP TO 39

94
171 125 75

36%
64% 47% 28%

40+ 50+ 60+

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 faculty members (almost 1/3 of teaching staff - 28%) This is an important issue that needs to be resolved within the next several years.

Engineer. Philos. Music Fine arts Rus. lang. Arm. liter. Physics Pre-school Ped.

Ecology
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Eng. & Germ. Psycology Pedagogy Mil. training History Chemistry Comp.Science Math. analys.

Biology
Algebra

Rus. lit.
French lang.

Phys. training Geography Arm. lang. Polit. & Econ. Sport Pedagogy

ANALYSIS Average age varies from 40 to 64 In 12 chairs (46%) average age is more than 50, i.e. significant aging is underway The picture will be more informative, if one takes account the average absolute deviation

(AAD)

ANALYSIS

When a high average age is combined with a small AAD this indicates that the teachers are of nearly same age, i.e. there are no junior faculty members This is a threat in terms of stability of the teaching

staff

CHAIR
Engineering Philosophy Music Physics

AVARAGE AGE (years) 64 60 57 53

AAD (years) 8 4.6 7 7.4

ANALYSIS But when a small average age is combined with a small AAD, in this case staff is stable. Situation is satisfactory in chairs of Ecology and Military training Average ages here are not only less than institutes average (49 years), but also AAD are small, which in this case means that the teachers are mostly young
AVARAGE AGE (years)
40 45

CHAIR
Ecology Military training

AAD (years)
5.5 6.0

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

0 3

0 1 2

0 1

0 1 1

30

22 19

16

13

12

12 11 10

9 7 7

9 7

8 7

8 6 5

Problems

Possible Decisions Enhance status of main, permanent staff by

Big ratio of short-time teaching staff at chair of Comp. Science (42%) However in 14 chairs (more then half of chairs) all staff is permanent

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

Male 38% Female

62%

100% 90%

80%
70% 60% 50% 40% Female Male

30%
20% 10% 0%

Traditionally more women than men teach at GSPI Only a few chairs (e.g. History, Fine arts, Geography) showa "gender equality" In majority of chairs - no such equality English, French, Russian language, Russian literature, and Ecology chairs are almost fully equipped with only female teachers Male teachers dominate in sports, military, Physics and Computer science chairs

14 5%
Total - 265

126 48% 125

Doctor of Sciences -14

Candidate of Sciences - 125

47%

Without Degrees - 126

62

49

47

Doctor of Sciences

PhD

Without degrees

Problems

Possible Decisions

Near half of teachers dont have academic degrees (48%) Foreign languages, sport, military and fine arts - 70% + Small number of teachers with second academic degrees (5%) Encourage teachers to pursue academic degrees

Problems

Near half of teachers (48%) dont have any academic degrees Only 35% of this contingent comprise young teachers (under 40) and most of them are working on their PhD thesis. Thus, the majority of teachers dont have any academic degrees and at the same time they do not see the need to purchase. This problem can be solved gradually The following steps are offered to improve the situation.

Recommendations for Improvement a. Currently the academic degree does not result in a significant salary increase (only 5%). Accordingly namely the staff with degrees should be the main target of salary raise. b. When hiring new staff, preference will be given to candidates with academic degrees c. Teaching staff without degrees should typically have only practical and laboratory classes and as a rule teach only Bachelor students

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS There are relatively few (5%) teachers with 2nd level of academic degrees Pursuing this degree requires much effort and contribution in research Full-time teaching job requires 750-800 hours of teaching load annually. This does not allow to perform research work required for doctoral dissertation within a reasonable period of time

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT This problem is not solved by doctorantura- yet unsuccessful doctoral institution. As a suggestion - to restore creative leaves that were in practice in Soviet education system. But this will result in financial problems, needed to be solved

Academic Degrees - Distibution by Chairs

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 6 1 1 1 1 0 1 12 6 6 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 8 12 4 5 6 4 2 2 1 0 23 9 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 3 6 6 7 7 3 7 6 7 4 1 2 1

6 9
7

2 5 8

0%

1
0

1
0 0

Doct. of Sci

Cand. of Sci

Without degree

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS 3. The number of teachers with academic degrees are relatively low in chairs of Physical training, Military training, Fine Arts and Music (less then30%), which is conditioned by the peculiarities of research activities in these sectors Only three chairs - Physics, Chemistry, and Armenian literature are fully equipped with teaching staff with academic degrees In contrast, the chair of English and German languages, has only 25% of the teaching staff with academic degrees

Faculty position levels Lecturer Assistant professor Associate professor Professor More or less direct link between degrees and positions. As a rule: Professor Doctor of Sciences Associate (assistant) professor PhD Lecturer without academic degrees

12
5% 94 35% 138 52% Professor Associate Prof.

Assistant Prof.
Lecturer

21
8%

66 55 54

42

Professor

Assoc. professor

Assist. professor

Lecturer

Problems
1. Most of faculty (52%) are on the lowest level (lecturer) Nearly 4% of faculty members (20) are on lowest level while holding academic degrees These are faculty members who recently defended PhD theses but havent yet got promotion

Problems
2. The Associate professors (35%) constitute the pillar of GSPI faculty. The group is diverse 70 % are experienced faculty close to retirement age (50+) Smaller group (30%) comprise junior faculty who will assure stability of teaching staff

Problems
3. Small number of faculty on the position of assistant professor (8%) which is probably due to the fact that this is a kind of intermediate position between assistant and associate professor positions In this respect, it is necessary to have a clear job description of the position to justify its existence

Questionnaire for anonymous assessment of teaching staff by students were developed Totally 18 questions with 4 possible answers excellent, good, satisfactory and bad 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 for different teachers, as we intended to reveal the fields that urgently need improvement

1. Comformity of course content and curricula 2. Clarity of the course material explanation 3. Your confidence in the teacher's knowledge 4. The teachers oral speech and articulation 5. The teacher keeps the material interesting during the whole course. 6. Students are encouraged to ask questions on the material. 7. The quality of the answers given to the students questions. 8. Effective time management by the teacher. 9. Provision of appropriate classroom order by the teacher.

10. The teachers creative approach toward the subject. 11. The teachers interest towards the students success. 12. The teachers respective attitude to the students. 13. The teachers objectivity and impartiality. 14. To what extent the course promotes your professional development? 15. To what extent the course promotes your general development. 16. Your willingness to participate in other courses by this teacher. 17. Your involvement in the course (questions and answers, etc.) 18. My entire course assessment

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Bad

Survey analyze The questions received maximum average votes for bad indicator (14+% of answers) 1. Students willingness to participate other courses lead by the same teacher (22% ) 2. The teachers interest towards the students success (16%). 3. The teachers creative approach toward the subject (14% )

Survey analyze

Goal disclose areas requiring improvement Students willingness to participate other courses lead by the same teacher

The average deviations for these indicators are also are near-maximum, meaning that different teachers receive quiet different marks for these indicators Possible solutions: The question required clarification about courses whether these are elective courses or simply imaginative courses

Survey analyze

Goal disclose areas requiring improvement The teachers interest towards the students success

Possible 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 of students

Survey analyze

Goal disclose areas requiring improvement The teachers creative approach toward the subject

Possible solutions: Increasing teachers level of mastery of the subject, including the field of contemporary developments in subject domain Regular research activities conducted by the teacher Involvement of students in research

Thank you for your attention

Questions???

Presenter: Gagik Demirjian, Director of QA Center Email: dega001@yahoo.com