Mišljenje diplomaca grčkih univerziteta o psihopedagoškoj i didaktičkoj osposobljenosti njihovih nastavnika

Abstract

Ovo empirijsko istraživanje zasnovano je na analizi literature koju je sproveo Stergiou (2017). Cilj istraživanja usmeren je na merenje kvaliteta obrazovnog rada, nastavnog materijala i aktivnosti univerzitetskih nastavnika u Grčkoj, na osnovu povratnih informacija dobijenih od njihovih diplomiranih studenata. U istraživanju je primenjen upitnik. Uzorak se sastojao od 388 diplomaca, studenata ASPETE programa iz Soluna, akademske 2017/2018. i 2018/2019. Godine. Ispitanici su, pored svojih deklarisanih demografskih karakteristika, na skali od pet tačaka davali odgovore za svaku od 27 stavki koje opisuju aspekte kvaliteta obrazovnog rada, nastavnog materijala i aktivnosti, kao i nastavnih metoda svojih univerzitetskih nastavnika (1 – nimalo; 2 – veoma malo; 3 – prilično; 4 – mnogo; 5 – veoma mnogo). Rezultati pokazuju da diplomci smatraju kako njihovi univerzitetski nastavnici dobro poznaju sadržaj kurseva, te da su dosledni tokom predavanja (praćenje rasporeda i zadovoljavajuća priprema). Studenti su dali prosečne ocene svojim nastavnicima u 20 od 27 kriterijuma kvaliteta univerzitetskog nastavnika. Nastavnici su ocenjeni ispod proseka za organizaciju aktivnosti čiji je cilj aktivno učešće studenata u radu u učionici, davanje uvoda i rekapitulacija nastave u učionici, povezivanje nastavnih metoda sa profesionalnim okruženjem (sa tržištem rada), povezivanje sadržaja izučavanih kurseva sa drugim kursevima i korišćenje radnih resursa (npr. radnih listova, pokaznog materijala) koji olakšavaju učenje. Faktorska analiza pokazala je da sva pitanja imaju visoko opterećenje na jednoj faktorskoj osi – univerzitetskoj pedagogiji (F1, Kronbah α = 0,947, 42% ukupne varijanse), dok su dve druge ose specijalizovane za konkretna polja: jedna za savetodavno-mentorsku ulogu univerzitetskog nastavnika (F2, Kronbah α = 0,879, 24% ukupne varijanse), a druga za nauku i stručnost (F3, Kronbah 0,741, 13% ukupne varijanse). Hijerarhijskom klaster analizom izdvojile su se četiri grupe diplomaca. Prva (C1) obuhvata 16,8% uzorka, druga (C2) 33%, treća (C3) 41,5% i četvrta (C4) 8,8% diplomaca. Klaster C1 sastoji se od pojedinaca koji vrednuju pedagošku kompetenciju i pedagoško obrazovanje svojih univerzitetskih nastavnika, kao i njihovu primarno naučnu orijentaciju i profesionalizam, dok u potpunosti negiraju njihovu mentorsko-savetodavnu ulogu. Grupu C2 čine diplomirani studenti koji u dovoljnoj meri uvažavaju mentorsko-savetodavnu ulogu svojih nastavnika, ali imaju negativno mišljenje o njihovim pedagoškim i didaktičkim aspektima. Diplomci koji pripadaju C3 grupi daju prosečnu ocenu kako pedagogiji nastave i pedagoškom obrazovanju svojih nastavnika, tako i njihovoj primarno naučnoj orijentaciji i profesionalizmu, dok misle da njihovi nastavnici nisu uspeli u svojoj mentorsko-savetodavnoj ulozi. Najzad, najmanji klaster C4 čine diplomci koji iako smatraju da pedagogija nastave i nastavne veštine njihovih nastavnika nisu adekvatne i ne veruju u njihove naučne veštine i profesionalizam, ipak prepoznaju njihov skroman doprinos kao savetnika i mentora koji su im pomogli da steknu predstavu o profesiji kojom bi želeli da se bave i da se tome prilagode. Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da većina studenata daje nisku ocenu nastavnicima grčkih univerziteta u gotovo svim aspektima univerzitetske pedagogije, što ukazuje na odsustvo pedagoških i didaktičkih veština nastavnika. Ovaj rezultat je očekivan, zbog nepostojanja kvalifikovane obuke za nastavnike. To, zapravo, uopšte nije preduslov za započinjanje akademske karijere i ne postoji akademska ustanova koja bi im omogućila da steknu pedagoške i didaktičke kompetencije. Usaglašenost sa dobrom praksom drugih evropskih zemalja trebalo bi da bude strateški izbor obrazovne politike u cilju modernizacije grčkih univerziteta u ovoj oblasti i da se to čini sveobuhvatnije i efikasnije.

This is a questionnaire based empirical research designed to measure the quality of educational work, teaching material and activities of Greek University teachers, based on their graduates’ feedback. The sample consisted of 388 graduates, all students of the ASPETE programs of Thessaloniki, for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The subjects, in addition to their declared demographic characteristics, answered, on a five-point scale (1 – not at all, 2 − very little, 3 − quite, 4 − much, 5 − very much), the 27 items (criteria) describing the aspects of educational work quality, teaching material and activities and teaching methods of their academic teachers. Results showed that graduates perceive that their academic teachers had a good knowledge of the courses content and they were consistent during teaching courses (timetable observation and satisfactory preparation). Students gave moderate scores to their teachers in 20 out of the 27 quality criteria of an academic teacher. Teachers were rated below average in the organization of activities aiming at actively involving the students in the classroom, providing them with the introduction and recapitulation of their classroom teaching, linking their teaching methods to the professional environment (the labour market), linking the content of the studied courses with other courses and the use of labour resources (e.g. worksheets, demonstration materials) that facilitate learning. Factor analysis showed that all questions were highly loaded on one factorial axis, University Pedagogy (F1, Cronbach’s α = 0.947, 42% of the total variance), while the two other axes were specialized in the fields, one in the Advisory- Mentor Role of the academic teacher (F2, Cronbach’s α = 0.879, 24% of the total variance) and the other in Science and Professionalism (F3, Cronbach’s 0.741, 13% of the total variance). Hierarchical Cluster Analysis highlighted four groups of graduates. The first (C1) includes 16.8% of the sample, the second (C2) 33%, the third (C3) 41.5% and the fourth (C4) 8.8% of the graduates. Cluster C1 consists of individuals who appreciated the value of pedagogical competence and teaching training of their university teachers as well as their scientific background orientation and professionalism while their mentoring-advisory role was completely deprecated. C2 consists of graduates who, while appreciating enough the mentor-advisory role of their teachers, have a negative view of their pedagogical and didactic training. C3 grades moderately both the teaching pedagogy and teaching training of their university teachers as well as their scientific background orientation and professionalism, while they think that their teachers have failed their mentor-advisory role. Finally, the smallest cluster C4, although it considers teaching pedagogy and teaching skills of their teachers inadequate, and does not believe in their science skills and professionalism, it recognizes a modest contribution as advisors and mentors who helped them get an idea of the profession they would like to follow and adapt to it. In conclusion, Greek university teachers are low-rated by the majority of students in almost all aspects of University Pedagogy, indicating the absence of their pedagogical and didactic training skills. This result was expected, due to absence of qualified teacher training. Indeed, it is not a prerequisite for entering the academic career and there is no academic institution offering them pedagogical and didactic competence. The compliance with good practices from other European countries should be a strategic educational policy choice in order to modernize Greek universities in this area and to do so more comprehensively and effectively.