Relations of University Values and Competences of University Teachers

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.

Rasch Analysis for Standards-Setting Appraisal of Competency Level-Based Performance on the Part of Instructors in Higher Education

“…To this end, the results of calculating the transition in each core competency to determine the standardssetting appraisal measurement model indicated that instructors' competency levels had been assessed in a real-world context. The results are in parallel with those of past researchers' (Blašková & Blaško, 2012;Islam et al, 2019;Le, 2021;Prasetio et al, 2017;Turturean, 2013).…”

“…These should be the core competencies model or used to identify a standard (Aliasghar et al, 2017). Each higher education instructor should follow this core competencies model in terms of behaviors and performance with regard to his or her work (Blašková & Blaško, 2012). Selvi (2010) listed nine core competencies as they apply to a higher education instructor: field competencies, research competencies, curriculum competencies, lifelong learning competencies, socio-cultural competencies, emotional competencies, communication c o m p e t e n c i e s , i n f o r m a t i o n a n d communication technologies competencies, and environmental competencies.…”