Development of a model and methods for forming a rating of teachers at the department

Introduction

One of the main directions of modernization of education in Russia is associated with improving its quality. The relevance of this age-old problem at the present stage is largely due to the level of teaching at the university, the level of education and professionalism of the teaching staff. If before the quality of higher education was discussed mainly at the state level, now consumers of specialists either directly or indirectly, through the mechanisms of the labor market, encourage universities to improve the professional training of graduates. In recent years, the very essence of the problem of the quality of higher education, as well as organizational and managerial, pedagogical and other methods of solving it have changed dramatically. There are several main directions in solving the problem of quality of education: managerial, related to the processes of providing technologies and factors for improving the quality of education in universities; the quality of training specialists; the quality of educational standards, curricula and textbooks for universities; the quality of the organization of the educational process and the quality of its scientific and methodological, informational, personnel and logistical support.

1. Relevance of the topic

One of the most important tools for managing the quality of the educational process is the creation of a system for evaluating the work of a teacher and introducing it into the practice of a single teacher, as well as the department, faculty and university as a whole. Therefore, the formation of the rating is an urgent task for the progressive growth of both the teachers themselves and the educational system as a whole. [1]

Primitive methods of subjective evaluation such as "weak teacher", "good teacher" cannot be accepted in higher education and cannot be any guide for evaluating a specialist. Only a periodic assessment of the teacher's work can reveal flaws and strengths in his work and allow timely adjustments to be made.

The choice of priority directions in the work of individual teachers and the department allows you to direct efforts to fulfil the tasks assigned to the university. As one of the driving forces in increasing the relevance of a particular type of activity, financial incentives for university employees can be used. The improvement of personal qualifications in a particular field of activity is stimulated by the developed system for assessing the quality of each teacher's contribution.

2. The purpose and objectives of the study

The main purpose of the work is to select and develop a model and methods for forming a rating of teachers that will consider the characteristics and statistics of employees. The system should be based on a list of input data, perform an analysis and at the output for each specialist to issue its own assessment and with the help of the results obtained, a rating should be formed.

The main tasks of the work:

1. Study of the evaluation criteria of the teaching staff.
2. Study of the main types of ratings.
3. Study of existing data description models.
4. Implementation and description of methods of teacher rating formation.

3. Analysis of systems for assessing the quality of teachers' work

3.1 The practice of evaluating the teaching staff of Russian universities

The system of labor assessment according to the current tariff schedule leads to a fairly strong degree to the equalization of labor costs of university employees. In this system, the individual employee's attitude to work, the quality and effectiveness of his work are not considered.

The use of a system for evaluating the work of teachers provides an opportunity to most accurately take into account the results of the teacher's work, which can serve as a basis for determining wages, and introduce categorization of the teaching staff. [2] For example, we can cite the experience of Volgograd State Technical University, where the rating criteria are the same for all teachers, but to ensure comparability of results, they are divided into six qualification categories: deans, heads of departments, professors, associate professors, senior teachers and assistants. Within these groups, the rating of each teacher is determined. It is formed by two elements: the "P" rating, which characterizes the qualification potential accumulated during the work, and the "A" rating, which reflects the activity in the main areas of activity in recent years. To stimulate the constant active creative work of teachers, the weighting coefficients of the ratings "P" and "A" in the total total assessment of their activities were adopted – these are 0.33 and 0.67 parts of one, respectively. The rating "P" contains qualification information – academic degree, academic title, membership in state and public academies, the number of candidates, doctors of sciences, work in specialized councils, editorial boards, etc. The initial data for determining the "A" rating are the volume of the academic load, including the management of graduate students, doctoral students, information about publications, methodological recommendations, patents, developed work programs. The absolute personal rating is determined by summing the natural values and multiplying them by the coefficients "P" and "A", i.e. by 0.33 and 0.67 respectively. The relative rating is equal to the partial of dividing the absolute rating of the teacher by the average rating value in the qualification group under consideration. A number of reviews and inspections are taking place at this university, and based on the results of monitoring the quality of the work of teachers, departments and faculties, the commission for this type of university work makes proposals to the rector's office for encouragement in the form of a monthly salary supplement.

In the research institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, for many years there has been a system for evaluating the quality of the work of researchers, where the results of scientific work for the past calendar year are evaluated in points.

The Russian system of certification and accreditation of universities has a number of requirements for the methods of assessing the qualifications of university employees by the attestation commissions of the Ministry of Education. Each university has its own system for assessing the quality of teachers' work, although they are similar in many ways. Usually, the list of requirements for teachers is used when announcing a competition for a particular position at a university.

3.2. A system for assessing the quality of university teachers' work.

Irkutsk State Medical University (VSMU) has developed and implemented a system for evaluating the quality of teachers' work, the basis of which is the principles listed above. The basis for the construction of this system is the direct connection of the requirements imposed on teachers with the requirements imposed on the university. The latter are reflected in the benchmarks of the rating system of the university, faculties, departments and specialties. The results of the teacher's work and his personal contribution to the implementation of benchmarks are the basis for calculating the teacher's rating.

In November, the ratings of teachers, departments, faculties and the university as a whole are determined annually. At the university, a "Teacher's Certificate sheet" is established for each teacher in the departments, where the results of determining his rating are entered. The latter is the resultant, the final sum of the individual components.

The rating calculations are made according to the Evaluation scale developed by the academic part of the university, consisting of the following sections:

• I – academic work and personnel training;
• II – organizational, methodological and social work;
• III – scientific work;
• IV – economic activity of departments.

If the teacher takes a part-time position, then the indicator of the total actual rating is divided by the share of the occupied working rate, and thus the indicator is brought to work full-time. The results of the rating calculation are brought to the attention of all teachers of the department. The rating of heads of departments is approved at meetings of faculty councils.

4. Methodology of rating assessment construction

The methodological basis for the construction of a rating assessment of the professional activity of teachers is the doctrine of the qualimetry of man and education. [3,4]

The theoretical foundations of the methodology of rating evaluation of teachers' activities are: 1) justification of teachers' rating as a category of pedagogical qualimetry; 2) principles of rating assessment design; 3) the essence and structure of rating assessment.

The main objectives of the rating are: 1) increasing the level of objectivity in assessing the activities of the teaching staff (hereinafter referred to as teaching staff); 2) increasing the professional motivation of teaching staff; 3) differentiating the assessment of activities to ensure the support of the most effective part of the teaching staff. [5]

The principles of designing, implementing, maintaining sustainable functioning and improving the rating of teachers are defined as:

1. A unified methodological framework that determines an integrated approach to the organization and practice of rating assessment as a priority.
2. Centralization of the creation and management of a unified system for assessing the professional activity of teaching staff at the university.
3. Complexity that provides an assessment of all types of teaching staff activities.
4. Accessibility, which includes full awareness of teachers about the goals, content and means of rating assessment.
5. Modularity, which ensures the creation and improvement of a comprehensive flexible assessment of the teaching staff, depending on the specifics of the department and the university, as well as on the objectives of the assessment.
6. Propaganda is a natural preparatory stage for the introduction of the rating. Propaganda is carried out by the educational and methodological department of the university (quality service) at the stage of developing the concept and implementing a rating assessment.
7. The priority of the pedagogical approach in the design of the rating assessment. The essence of this principle is that the design of the rating of professional activity of teaching staff should begin with the development of a theoretical concept that is supposed to be implemented. An analysis of the experience of organizing the evaluation of teachers' activities shows that when the pedagogical side is a priority, the evaluation turns out to be more effective.

4.1. Rating evaluation structure

The rating evaluation structure includes the following mandatory components:

• the quality model of the university teacher's activity;
• a mathematical model for calculating rating indicators;
• rating qualimetric scales for assessing the professional activity of teaching staff.

Rating qualimetric scales for assessing the professional activity of teaching staff, what is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 – The scheme of an integrated approach to the methodological characteristics of the teacher rating
(animation, size - 149KB, 9 slides)

The rating assessment is always based on certain evaluation rules. In this case, when determining the teacher 's rating, three of his qualities are taken into account: status ("past"), productivity ("present") and prospects ("future"). [6] An integrated assessment of a teacher's professional activity is derived considering his individual scientific, pedagogical and professional rating using three components: formal scientific, pedagogical and professional status (prestige), productivity and prospects of activity. Thus, the rating is the sum of such components as status, productivity and prospects. Since teachers of theoretical and clinical departments work at the medical university, which leaves an imprint on the content of their activities, the rating assumes the presence of two parts: invariant and variable. The invariant part is mandatory for teachers of all departments and includes a scientific and pedagogical rating. The variable part considers the peculiarities of clinical departments, where the teacher also performs therapeutic work, and includes pedagogical, scientific and therapeutic rating. [7]

The mathematical model for calculating rating indicators is based on the fact that the form of an individual teacher rating consists of three sections, which, in turn, include three more subsections of indicators. All of the above parameters have a certain number of criteria, each of which is assigned a certain score.

The results of the rating of teachers and departments are largely determined by what model of rating calculation the organizers will choose. In this paper, a variant of the model is considered based on the calculation of the average rating and the establishment of four rating levels relative to the average value. Other models are not excluded.

4.2. Description of the steps of forming a rating calculation system model

The model of the teaching staff rating calculation system based on the average rating consists of several steps.

Step 1. Determining the individual rating of the teacher.

Individual teacher rating includes three types of rating: pedagogical, scientific and therapeutic (for clinical departments). Each type contains three parameters: productivity, prospects and status. All of the above parameters have formal indicators expressed in points. The cost of each indicator is determined by the Quality Council. Information for teachers is confidential.

Based on the fact that any work is evaluated by its result and productivity is the leading indicator of the professional activity of teaching staff, it is advisable to introduce the following coefficients: for the "productivity" parameter – 0.9; for the "perspective" parameter – 0.7; for the "status" parameter – 0.5. The coefficients are approved by the quality Council and may change annually depending on from the strategic objectives of the university.

Step 2. Determination of the teacher's rating based on the average rating in the group of candidates, doctors of sciences and teachers who do not have an academic degree.

To determine the level of the teacher's rating, the concept of "average rating" is introduced, [8] which is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the individual ratings of teaching staff for the groups "candidates of sciences", "doctors of sciences" and "teachers who do not have an academic degree" based on the data presented by the teachers of the departments at the end of the academic year. The average rating is a value that can change annually depending on the number and results of individual PPP ratings. Due to the fact that the teaching staff of clinical departments also performs medical work at a medical university, it is advisable to determine the ratings of candidates, doctors of sciences and teachers who do not have an academic degree, clinical and theoretical departments. In each of the selected groups, the average rating may be different.

Step 3. Model for determining the teacher's rating level depending on the average rating.

In order to determine the level of the teacher's rating, the set of values of individual ratings of teaching staff in the group to which he belongs, depending on the availability and type of academic degree, is divided into 4 levels: high, above average, below average, low. [9]

4.3. Reliability of the assessment

When discussing any rating, the question of its reliability invariably arises. This section will present a mathematically correct way to assess the reliability of the rating. First of all, let's consider the concept of mutual evaluation. [10] All university teachers are invited to fill out the following questionnaire (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 – Questionnaire for teachers to fill out the degree of knowledge of colleagues.

On the basis of such questionnaires, it is possible to build a database containing the degree of knowledge of each other by teachers. We will assume that the degree of knowledge is a dimensionless quantity in the range from 0 (complete ignorance) to 1 (absolutely complete knowledge). Let's agree that no one can ever have absolute knowledge. Then, for example, we can offer the scale shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Scale of numerical equivalents of qualitative assessments of the degree of knowledge.

Let's present the evaluation results in the form of a set of the following tables (there will be as many tables as there are evaluation subjects involved).

Figure 4 – Evaluation results

K_ij is denoted by j-й criteria. x_ij the rating is indicated by the i-th object by the j-th criterion.

Earlier we agreed to get one integral evaluation of the object. In this case, we will need the following function: R = f(x,w), where R is the rating of the object, x is the vector of criteria ratings, w is the vector of weights of criteria.

Since we have also introduced the concept of "reliability of assessment" into consideration, as a result, the assessment of each object will be represented by two numbers: R – the rating of the object and V – the degree of reliability of this rating. We will write it down as follows: O = {R,V}.

Conclusion

In the course of the work carried out, its relevance was proved, since in modern education one of the key tasks is the introduction of methods and systems that will improve the quality of teaching. The main objectives and opportunities of the rating assessment, the analysis of its structure was considered. With the help of the data under consideration, the rating formation models were studied, which consider the key features and criteria for the teacher.

1. Балыгина, Е.А. Подходы к развитию системы оценки деятельности специалиста: определение показателей деятельности и коэффициентов их значимости, связи содержания публикаций с показателями деятельности / Е.А. Балыгина, О.Г. Федоров – М.: – Социальные отношения, 2018. – 95-104 с.
2. Бебенина, Е.В. Обоснованность применения рейтингов в качестве показателей эффективности университетов / Е.В. Бебенина и др. – М.: Отечественная и зарубежная педагогика, 2016. – 75-88с.
3. Селезнев, Н.А. Квалиметрия человека и образования: методология и практика. Национальная система оценки качества образования в России. 5-й симп / Н. А. Селезнев и А. И. Субетто. – М.: Исслед. центр проблем качества подготовки специалистов, 1996.
4. Субетто, А.И. От квалиметрии человека – к квалиметрии образования. Методология и практика / А.И Субетто и др. – М.: Исслед. центр, 1993.
5. Бордовская, Н. В. Методика оценки качества деятельности преподавателей вуза / Н.В. Бордовская, Е.В. Титова, 2003. – 15 с.
6. Черных, С.И. Качество образования: инверсия целей и средств / С.И. Черных и др. – М.: – Педагогический журнал Башкортостана, 2018. – 19-25 с.
7. Васильева, Е. Ю. Теория и практика оценки качества профессиональной деятельности профессорско-преподавательского состава вуза / Е.Ю. Васильева, С.Ю. Трапицын – М.: Изд-во РГПУ им. А. И. Герцена, 2006 – 180с.
8. Галкина, В. А. Критерии оценки деятельности преподавателя / В.А.Галкина и др. – М.: Триумф, 2003. – 60-65 с.
9. Ковалев, В.А. Система оценки деятельности кафедр университета / В.А. Ковалев – М.: Вестник высшей школы, 2002. – 17-22 с.
10. Захаревич, В. Г. Оценка качества работы преподавателей вуза / В.Г. Захаревич, В.А. Обуховец – М.: Высшее образование сегодня, 2003. – 12-15с.