Competences needed for the university faculty in view of pedagogy students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2012vol1.41Keywords:
university faculty, assessment of competences, pedagogy studentAbstract
Diverse evaluation of the study process and the activities of all participants involved in it is a significant element in the context of introducing quality culture at the higher education institutions (HEI). It is a common practice in HEI to carry out students’ surveys in order to receive students’ evaluation on the quality of the study process as such, the study curriculum, the content and organization of particular subjects. On the basis of the performed analysis of the scientific and didactic literature, the article describes students’ survey and the possibilities of applying its results in assessing the quality of the university faculty’s professional activities. The survey of pedagogy students was performed in the empirical study which helped to find out students’ understanding about the competences needed for the university faculty in their professional activities in the study process at higher education institution and the professional development needs of the university faculty in view of pedagogy students are defined.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Domínguez Garrido, Concepción; Medina Rivilla, Antonio; Cacheiro Gonzáles, Luz (Coordinadores). (2010). Investigación e innovación de la docencia universitaria en el espacio Europeo de educación superior. España, Madrid: CERASA.
2. Eisenberger, Kathleen; & Kramer, Jost W. (2005). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Lehrevalution an einer Hochschule. In: Kramer, J.W. (Hrsg.) Hochschulen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lehre und Forschung. München und Mering: Rainer Kampp Verlag. S. 39-74.
3. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki, 2009. Pieejams: http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf (atsauce 28.04.2009.)
4. Ēriksens, Tomass Hillanns. (2010). Mazas vietas – lieli jautājumi. Ievads sociālantropoloģijā. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
5. Koķe, Tatjana. (2002). Mūžizglītības pedagoģiskie pamati. Skolotājs, Nr. 2, 4.- 8.lpp.
6. Latvijas Universitātes Pedagoģijas zinātniskais institūts (LU PZI). Starptautiskais projekts „Spānijas sadarbības un starptautisko mācībspēku sagatavošanas programmu novērtējums: modelis nākotnes projektu attīstībā Eiropas vienotajā augstākās izglītības telpā” Pieejams: http://www.pzi.lu.lv/index.php?id=pzipetnieciba_inc6# Da%C5%BE%C4%81d%C4%ABbas%20pedago%C4%A3isko (atsauce 22.08.2010.)
7. Linstone, Harold A., Turoff, Murray. (2002). The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications. University of Southern California.
8. Radnor, Hilary. (2002). Researching your Professional practice. Doing Interpretive Research. Backingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
9. Schmidt, Bernhard. (2008.) Qualität der Lehre an Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag. S. 156-170.
10. Wildt, Johannes. (2000). Ein hochschuldidaktischer Blick auf die Lehrerbildung: Hochschule als didaktisches Lern- und Handlungsfeld. In: Bayer, M.& Bohnsack, F.& Koch-Priewe, B.& Wildt (Hrsg.) Lehrerin und Lehrer werden ohne Kompetenz? Professionalisierung durch eine andere Lehrerbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. S.171- 182.
2. Eisenberger, Kathleen; & Kramer, Jost W. (2005). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Lehrevalution an einer Hochschule. In: Kramer, J.W. (Hrsg.) Hochschulen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lehre und Forschung. München und Mering: Rainer Kampp Verlag. S. 39-74.
3. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki, 2009. Pieejams: http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf (atsauce 28.04.2009.)
4. Ēriksens, Tomass Hillanns. (2010). Mazas vietas – lieli jautājumi. Ievads sociālantropoloģijā. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
5. Koķe, Tatjana. (2002). Mūžizglītības pedagoģiskie pamati. Skolotājs, Nr. 2, 4.- 8.lpp.
6. Latvijas Universitātes Pedagoģijas zinātniskais institūts (LU PZI). Starptautiskais projekts „Spānijas sadarbības un starptautisko mācībspēku sagatavošanas programmu novērtējums: modelis nākotnes projektu attīstībā Eiropas vienotajā augstākās izglītības telpā” Pieejams: http://www.pzi.lu.lv/index.php?id=pzipetnieciba_inc6# Da%C5%BE%C4%81d%C4%ABbas%20pedago%C4%A3isko (atsauce 22.08.2010.)
7. Linstone, Harold A., Turoff, Murray. (2002). The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications. University of Southern California.
8. Radnor, Hilary. (2002). Researching your Professional practice. Doing Interpretive Research. Backingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
9. Schmidt, Bernhard. (2008.) Qualität der Lehre an Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag. S. 156-170.
10. Wildt, Johannes. (2000). Ein hochschuldidaktischer Blick auf die Lehrerbildung: Hochschule als didaktisches Lern- und Handlungsfeld. In: Bayer, M.& Bohnsack, F.& Koch-Priewe, B.& Wildt (Hrsg.) Lehrerin und Lehrer werden ohne Kompetenz? Professionalisierung durch eine andere Lehrerbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. S.171- 182.
Downloads
Published
2015-05-09
Issue
Section
Higher Education Pedagogy
How to Cite
Baranova, S., & Kaļķe, B. (2015). Competences needed for the university faculty in view of pedagogy students. SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1, 205-216. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2012vol1.41
