University of Rijeka, Croatia

Keywords: Student assessment, quality teaching, competency in teaching, student learning, university staff development, University of Rijeka, higher education, case study.

Article style and source: Work in Progress; 6th Improving Student Learning Symposium, "Improving Student Learning Outcomes", 7th-9th September 1998, University of Brighton, Falmer Campus, UK.

Contents

• Background
• Method
• Result
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgements
• References

Background

According to the Law on higher education, for most university teachers there is only one occasion in their academic carrier that they have to present publicly their teaching abilities: at their habilitation lecture. Students' evaluations are exceptional. In the whole country, no unit or university centre for the improvement of teaching activities exists. Universities themselves are extremely inert, almost avoiding to meet change and transformation according to the needs of modern society, and rather answering only to legislative demands for their accountability.

Although universities in Croatia in most cases show little interest to improve the quality of teaching, attempts for improving university teaching and learning may be found. Beginning in 1990, the Ministry of Science funded a research project "The Conditions and Criteria for Effectiveness of University Teaching". The results (Lediç, 1990; 1992; 1995) have shown that university professors in Croatia did not recognise the need for their development, while at the same time many of them have only a very limited knowledge of higher education teaching methods. Teaching at Croatian universities is in most cases traditional, because teachers mostly follow their own educational experience and are not given any information about more effective teaching methods. In addition, university professors have expressed doubt concerning staff development as a factor for improving teaching and learning. Motivation for staff development is weak. On the other hand, students expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching.

It may be concluded that university teaching in Croatia has serious problems. It is obvious that the indicators of the quality of teaching have been negative: dissatisfied students, traditional teaching, lack of an appreciation of the need for improvement, doubts concerning educational theory and practice as a mean for better teaching. This led us to the conclusion that a model for improving teaching and learning at the universities in Croatia should be proposed and applied.

In the study previously mentioned, some recent approaches to the improvement of teaching and learning at the universities were examined (TQM, reflective practitioner approach), as well as different models of staff development (Lediç, 1993; 1994). The conclusion was, that in order to improve teaching and change the institutional culture towards a more responsible attitude towards teaching, it is necessary to develop and apply an adequate university staff development model according to international standards, but adapted to Croatian traditions and circumstances.

In 1995 the project "The Quality of Teaching in Higher Education" was proposed to the Republic of Croatia Ministry of Science and Technology for funding. The aim of this research is to explore internationally accepted criteria of quality concerning higher education (especially those closely connected to teaching competencies of higher education teachers), to find out the extent to which these criteria are respected in Croatian higher education, and, finally, according to these results, to develop a model of university staff development, which aims to build up a "culture of quality". The results of the 1995 project and experience from actual practice indicate that:

1. quality criteria, as well as higher education teaching practice in Croatia, differ significantly from the criteria accepted in international literature and practice;
2. the quality of teaching (seen primarily through student evaluations), is not satisfactory. content

Method

1. to explore the experts' teachers' and students' opinion about the general importance of the criteria (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to successful university teaching), and;
2. to explore the teachers' and students' opinion on the extent to which every criterion is respected in actual university teaching in Croatia (teachers were assessing their own teaching practice, and students were assessing their overall experience at university).

• Teaching objectives are clearly defined.
• Students' interests are encouraged.
• Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.
• Teachers are experts in their subject.
• Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.
• Teachers emphasise important parts of the subject.
• Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.
• Teachers respect students' individual differences.
• Teachers ask for feedback.
• Teachers respond to students' feedback.
• The assessment of students is fair and reliable.
• Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a student's subject of study.
• Books and other resources are available.
• Teachers show readiness to help.

Teachers, students and experts were to express their opinions on a 1-5 scale, checking 1 if their opinion was that a certain activity does not influence at all the quality of teaching, and 5 if it influences it a lot, and - when actual teaching is assessed - checking 1 when a certain criterion is not respected at all, and 5 when it is always respected. In the part of the research that we are going to present in this paper, our intention was to examine the difference between 'ideal' (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to successful university teaching) and &'real' (assessment of the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university) according to the students' opinion.

The sample of the teachers and students was chosen at the University of Rijeka. This University incorporates: The Faculty of Economics (ECO Rijeka), The Faculty of Economics and Tourism in Pula (ECO Pula), The Faculty of Civil Engineering (CIVIL ENG), The Faculty of Hotel Management (HOT), The Faculty of Medicine (MED), The Faculty of Education in Rijeka (ED Rijeka), The Faculty of Education in Pula (ED Pula), The Maritime Faculty (MARI), The Faculty of Law (LAW), and The Faculty of Engineering (ENG).

The students who participated in the research attended their third year of study at the university. The third year was chosen because we assumed that these students had enough experience of university teaching. At the same time they were far enough from finishing their course work so they might be motivated to be involved in the process of university teaching improvement. With the agreement and help of the deans of every school at the university, precise appointments were made for completing the questionnaires and usually students were given about 10 minutes to fill them in. This may have resulted in some of students, who needed more time, not being in a position to think seriously about all the questions. content

Results

a) Participants

Table I shows the participation of students in the research.

SCHOOLS	ED Ri	ED Pula	MED	ENG	CIVIL ENG	ECO Ri	LAW	MARI	HOT	ECO Pula	TOT
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE 3RD Y.	222	105	159	63	61	331	90	116	172	130	1449
TOTAL QUEST. STU.	146	34	29	19	26	72	24	26	58	35	469
% QUEST. STUDENTS	66	32	18	30	43	22	27	22	34	27	32

TABLE I. Sample: Students

It seems that the student questionnaire results are significant, particularly as they point at the problem of university teaching in Croatia. The figure of 32% among students is actually not the response rate but the percentage of questioned students in the third year of their studying. Although the research team was trying to reach the students in their classrooms several times, and in some cases the questionnaires were even left for missing colleagues to be filled out at home, we were not able to get higher response rates, with extremely high variations, ranging from 18% (MED) to 66% (ED Rijeka). We have to point out again that our visits across Faculties were scheduled by the deans, who took special care that our visits were arranged at the time when most students attended classes. This serious difficulty showed us that students simply do not attend classes, which means that the students' teaching evaluation should be taken with caution. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that non-attenders were even less satisfied with the teaching than attenders.

b) The analysis of the criteria

The 15 criteria were presented to the students according to two aspects: 'ideal' (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to successful university teaching ) and 'real' (assessment of the extent to which each criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university). The results are presented in the Table II.

CRITERIA	IDEAL		REAL
	MEAN	RANK	MEAN	RANK
1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.	4,37	7,5	3,27	3,5
2. Students' interests are encouraged.	4,42	5	2,53	12
3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.	4,50	3	3,48	2
4. Teachers are experts in their subject.	4,65	1	3,93	1
5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.	4,09	11	3,12	5,5
6. Teachers emphasise important parts of the subject.	4,39	6	3,27	3,5
7. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.	4,07	12	2,43	13
8. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.	4,24	10	2,70	8
9. Teachers respect studentsŐ individual differences.	3,88	13	2,16	15
10. Teachers ask for feedback.	3,71	15	2,67	9,5
11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.	3,79	14	2,32	14
12. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.	4,61	2	2,67	9,5
13. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a student's subject of study.	4,25	9	3,12	5,5
14. Books and other resources are available.	4,49	4	2,59	11
15. Teachers show readiness to help.	4,37	7,5	3,06	7

TABLE II: Students' differences between 'ideal' and 'real' (means and ranks)

From the rankings of the'ideal' teaching we may construct a students' image of quality teaching: teachers who are expert in their subject (1), assess their students fairly (2), teachers who are well prepared (3) and resources available (4). What they consider least important is: asking for feedback (15), responding to students feedback (14) and respect for students' individual differences (13). It is clear that students have rather traditional view on teaching quality, and consider themselves as the least important part that should be taken attention to in quality teaching;

The main quality features of actual ('real') teaching are: teachers really are experts in their subjects (1), are well prepared for their teaching (2), emphasise important parts of the subject (3.5) with clearly defined objectives (3.5). If we consider means in the assessment of 'ideal' and 'real' teaching, lower results in assessment of 'real' are notable. Wilcoxon Matched Pairs statistical test (Table III) has shown that according to the students there is a statistically significant difference in the assessment of each criterion, when compared as 'ideal' or 'real'.

CRITERIA	RANK (IDEAL)	RANK (REAL)	Z
1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.	7,5	3,5	14,83
2. Students' interests are encouraged.	5	12	17,33
3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.	3	2	14,33
4. Teachers are experts in their subject.	1	1	12,26
5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.	11	5,5	12,75
6. Teachers emphasise important parts of the subject.	6	3,5	14,58
7. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.	12	13	16,35
8. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.	10	8	16,13
9. Teachers respect students' individual differences.	13	15	16,14
10. Teachers ask for feedback.	15	9,5	13,12
11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.	14	14	15,65
12. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.	2	9,5	16,69
13. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a student's subject of study.	9	5,5	14,01
14. Books and other resources are available.	4	11	16,75
15. Teachers show readiness to help.	7,5	7	15,11

TABLE III: Wilcoxon Match Pairs Test (Students, Ideal Vs. Real, Significance Level Z=1,96; P<0,05) content

Conclusions

We believe that students' assessment in this case could be understood as an indicator that teaching at this university does not adequately respond to the quality criteria, and is not favourable to students. We consider that our results must be taken as a serious warning that some actions for improving the quality of university teaching should be taken. However, although the students' attitudes ask for change, it is clear - especially having in mind the passive role of students in Croatian higher education, of which they are very aware - that they themselves cannot be the force that could lead the way to change.

What appears to be missing in the situation in Croatia and is essential for any change is a firm commitment to change at a very high level. We have perhaps to accept that at present staff development activities in Croatia are still in a' pre-historical' phase, but that a way forward might be to start by using staff development to reduce the gaps between 'ideal' and 'real'. At the same time we should try to make the 'ideal'' closer to what is recognised as such by the international university community.

Acknowledgements:

This study was supported by the Republic of Croatia Ministry of Science and Technology (project no.: 00913) and Research Support Scheme of the OSI/HESP, grant No.: 43/1997. Special thanks for his advice and support go to Professor Lewis Elton, Higher Education Research and Development Unit, University College London. content

References:

ANDREWS, J. et al. (1996) The teaching and learning transaction in higher education: a study of excellent professors and their students, Teaching in higher education, 1, pp. 81-103.

BOOTH, A. & HYLAND, P. (1996) History in higher education (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers)

CHICKERING, A.W. et al. (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education, AAHE Bulletin, 39, pp. 3-6.

COX, B. (1994) Practical pointers for university teachers (London: Kogan Page)

CVETEK, S. (1993) Visoksokolski kurikulum. Strategije na‹rtovanja, izvedbe in evaluacije studentskih programov (Maribor: Dialog)

LEDIÇ, J. (1990) University staff development: proposals for cross-cultural dialogue. Pedagoski rad. 45(4), pp. 438-443.

LEDIÇ, J. (1992) Staff development for improving teaching and learning in Yugoslavia: Some ideas for a cross-cultural dialogue with West-European units for staff development and research into higher education, in: B.BERENDT & J.STARY (Eds.) Advanced study programmes for key persons and cross-cultural dialogue North-South-East-West (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang)

LEDIÇ, J. (1993) Towards new standards in higher education. Napredak, 134(2), pp. 187-196.

LEDIÇ, J. (1994) TQM - recent approach to higher education quality, Napredak, 135(4), pp. 456-465.

LEDIÇ, J. (1995) Faculty (staff) development for improving teaching and learning in higher education: Croatian experience. ERIC database, doc.no. ED 383 244, 9 May 1995.

MARENTIÅ-POÏARNIK, B. et al. (1995) Izziv raznolikosti (Nova Gorica: Educa)

McKEACHIE, W.J. (1986) Teaching tips: a guide book for the beginning college teachers. 8th.ed. (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath )

PENNER, J.G. & CENTRA, J.A. (1993) Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)

About the Authors