Relations of University Values and Competences of University Teachers

M. Blašková, Dominika Tumová, Rudolf Blaško
{"title":"Relations of University Values and Competences of University Teachers","authors":"M. Blašková, Dominika Tumová, Rudolf Blaško","doi":"10.2478/joim-2019-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: The paper deals with the theoretical and empirical examination of university values in relation to key competences of university teachers. The combination of values that universities should prioritize and the competences that university teachers should possess is seen in the paper as an important precondition for improving the quality and acceleration of modern university progress. The theoretical part analyzes, compares and synthesizes opinions on key terms examined in the paper, i.e. higher education, university, values, and competences. The empirical part presents, on the one hand, the results of the questionnaire survey aimed at defining important university values. The survey was carried out on a sample of n = 279 students of the University of Žilina, Slovak Republic, and obtained 1,786 statements on crucial values or sub-values of the university. On the other hand, based on results of the previous survey (n = 27 university teachers) which was targeted on key competences of the great university teachers, the empirical part seeks to experimentally link university key values with teachers’ key competences. Methodology: Analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction, questionnaire survey, thinking experiment. Hypothesis H1: University values defined by students will be repeated in the survey, i.e. student views on the core values of university will be identical or similar in content. Negation hypothesis H0: University values defined by students will not be repeated in the survey. Findings: Respondents reported a total of n0 = 1,786 statements regarding the university values or sub-values. A substantial consensus was found: many of values were repeated for respondents. Defined values were subsequently grouped: from the initially defined n1 = 229 values, n2 = 32 complex values were generated. This leads to a rejection of H0, in favor of H1: the university values generated by students are similar in the content. The results in the evaluative question confirmed the assumption that respondents considered most important mostly those values that the previous open question most frequently reported. Although depending on the study program is always the quality of education in the first place of importance, the order of importance of other values varies to some extent. Value Added: Opinions on university teachers’ competences and university’s values were discussed. Experimental linking of university values to competences of teachers was performed based on the survey results conducted by the authors in 2012 (this one consisted of three sequential interviews/workshops with teachers of University of Žilina). A logical conclusion was formulated: All the university teachers and scientists are becoming authorities competent to build, preserve and transform universal knowledge into an ever-higher level. Recommendations: A conclusion of the paper contains the characteristics recommended for achieve an effective process of developing university competences.","PeriodicalId":302686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intercultural Management","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intercultural Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2019-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objective: The paper deals with the theoretical and empirical examination of university values in relation to key competences of university teachers. The combination of values that universities should prioritize and the competences that university teachers should possess is seen in the paper as an important precondition for improving the quality and acceleration of modern university progress. The theoretical part analyzes, compares and synthesizes opinions on key terms examined in the paper, i.e. higher education, university, values, and competences. The empirical part presents, on the one hand, the results of the questionnaire survey aimed at defining important university values. The survey was carried out on a sample of n = 279 students of the University of Žilina, Slovak Republic, and obtained 1,786 statements on crucial values or sub-values of the university. On the other hand, based on results of the previous survey (n = 27 university teachers) which was targeted on key competences of the great university teachers, the empirical part seeks to experimentally link university key values with teachers’ key competences. Methodology: Analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction, questionnaire survey, thinking experiment. Hypothesis H1: University values defined by students will be repeated in the survey, i.e. student views on the core values of university will be identical or similar in content. Negation hypothesis H0: University values defined by students will not be repeated in the survey. Findings: Respondents reported a total of n0 = 1,786 statements regarding the university values or sub-values. A substantial consensus was found: many of values were repeated for respondents. Defined values were subsequently grouped: from the initially defined n1 = 229 values, n2 = 32 complex values were generated. This leads to a rejection of H0, in favor of H1: the university values generated by students are similar in the content. The results in the evaluative question confirmed the assumption that respondents considered most important mostly those values that the previous open question most frequently reported. Although depending on the study program is always the quality of education in the first place of importance, the order of importance of other values varies to some extent. Value Added: Opinions on university teachers’ competences and university’s values were discussed. Experimental linking of university values to competences of teachers was performed based on the survey results conducted by the authors in 2012 (this one consisted of three sequential interviews/workshops with teachers of University of Žilina). A logical conclusion was formulated: All the university teachers and scientists are becoming authorities competent to build, preserve and transform universal knowledge into an ever-higher level. Recommendations: A conclusion of the paper contains the characteristics recommended for achieve an effective process of developing university competences.
大学价值观与大学教师能力的关系
摘要目的:对大学价值观与大学教师关键能力的关系进行理论和实证检验。大学应重视的价值观与大学教师应具备的能力相结合,是提高大学质量、加快现代大学发展的重要前提。理论部分分析、比较和综合了本文所考察的关键术语,即高等教育、大学、价值观和能力。实证部分一方面给出了旨在界定大学重要价值观的问卷调查结果。该调查以斯洛伐克共和国Žilina大学的n = 279名学生为样本进行,获得了1786份关于该大学关键值或子值的陈述。另一方面,实证部分在先前针对优秀高校教师关键能力的调查结果(n = 27名高校教师)的基础上,试图将高校核心价值观与教师关键能力进行实验性联系。方法:分析、综合、比较、抽象、问卷调查、思维实验。假设H1:学生定义的大学价值观在调查中会被重复,即学生对大学核心价值观的看法在内容上是相同或相似的。否定假设H0:学生定义的大学价值观在调查中不会重复。调查结果:受访者共报告了n0 = 1,786个关于大学价值观或子价值观的陈述。我们发现了一个重要的共识:许多价值观在被调查者中被重复。随后对定义值进行分组:从最初定义的n1 = 229个值,生成n2 = 32个复值。这导致了对H0的拒绝,而对H1的支持:学生产生的大学价值观在内容上是相似的。评价性问题的结果证实了一个假设,即被调查者认为最重要的大多是那些之前开放问题最常报告的价值。虽然根据学习计划的不同,教育质量总是放在第一位,但其他价值的重要性顺序在一定程度上有所不同。附加值:论述了对高校教师能力与高校价值的看法。基于作者在2012年进行的调查结果(包括与Žilina大学教师的三次连续访谈/研讨会),进行了将大学价值观与教师能力联系起来的实验。由此得出了一个合乎逻辑的结论:所有的大学教师和科学家都正在成为有能力建立、保存和将普遍知识转化为更高水平的权威。建议:论文的结论包含了实现有效的大学能力发展过程所建议的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信