ࡱ> Root Entry0  F;X_n`WordDocumentK ,Y@@K  ,,RCompObjjSummaryInformation(;    !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGTSUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry0  F;X(`WordDocumentK ,Y@@K  ,,&SCompObjjSummaryInformation(;  H  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGJTKLMNOPQYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~se, doc.no. ED 383 244, 9 May 1995. McKeachie, W.J. (1986). Teaching tips: a guide book for the beginning college teachers. 8th.ed. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath Moodie, C.G. (ed.). (1986). Standards and Criteria in Higher Education. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press Penner, J.G. & Centra, J.A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflectivatization, cuts of fonds, etcG)DJasminka LedicAC Normal.dotJasminka Ledic27Microsoft Word for Windows 95@È@ZB@zrۼ@:`+jࡱ> ՜.+,0HP|  !Rijekaprojekt Inzenjering d.o.o.WP6 In recent decades, caused by growing demands on higher education institution to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democratization, cuts of fonds, etcࡱࡱ>  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69qࡱOh+'0\p|    $ 0<DLTIn recent decades, caused by growing demands on higher education institution to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democrStates, in spite of emphasized research activity of (elite) universities, university staff development centers are widely developed. Universities in Australia and New Zealand are well-known for their search for quality in teaching, and it could be stated that this movement have become global. However, there still are areas where improving quality of teaching is still not considered as important activity. In Croatia (now independent republic which was part of former Yugoslavia), and its four universities, the initiatives for improving teaching in higher education exist only as sporadic and periodical activity. The reasons for such a situation are several. One of the most important factors for neglecting the quality of teaching is well know dispute about the relationship between research and teaching activities at the universities. The stereotype opinion that a man of science, an expert in the field, is automatically also a good teacher is rather strong. What demotivates the initiatives for improving teaching and learning is also the legal aspect of the problem: although proclaiming equality of importance of research and teaching at the universities, in the process of election and re-election of university teachers it is research that is important (Ledi, 1992). According to the Law on higher education, for the most of the university teachers there is only one time in their lifetime that they have to publicly present their teaching abitities: at their habilitation lecture. Students evaluations are exceptional. In the whole country, no unit or university centre for the improvement of teaching activites exists. Universities themselves are extremely inert, not trying to meet the change and transform according to the needs of modern society, but rather to answer only on legislative demands for their accountability. As mentioned before, there are four universities in Croatia: the biggest and the oldest University of Zagreb, (founded 1874, 45010 students in 1995), the Josip Juraj Strossmayer University in Osijek (founded 1975, 6 343 students), the University of Split (founded 1974, 9763 students), and University of Rijeka (founded 1973, 7 657 students). Although the Law on higher education declares different sources for financing higher education (foundations and donations, tuition fees and scholarships, other sources if they are in accordance with the function of the institution of higher education), the vast majority of higher education is financed from the the budget of the Republic of Croatia. According to the Law, university teachers are classified into the two groups: auxiliary teaching staff (expert associate, junior assistant, assistant and senior assistant) and teaching staff (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor). Within the bodies which are entitled to guide the directions for the development of higher education in Croatia are The Rectors Conference. The members of this body are rectors of all the universities, and - among others - the Conference establishes conditions for the assessment of teaching and professional activities in the process of university teachers election. This means that the criteria and the election proceedure is not the matter of the particular university. The National Council for Higher Education (president and 18 members appointed by the Parliament), is founded in order to take care of the development of the higher education system. It shall give its opinions, proposals and recommendations to institutions of higher education, to the Ministry and to other state bodies with the aim of ensuring the qualitative and successful functioning of the higher education system. (Art.132, HE Law). The Ministry shall obtain from the National Council an opinion and initiative for introducing new or abolishing existing programs, courses of study and institutions of higher education. Having in mind very important role of the National Council for Higher Education, and Ministry of Science as main (almost exclusive source for financing higher education), it may be considered that the authonomy of the universities is rather weak. In addition, universities usually do not take proactive part in the evaluation proceedure. According to the Higher Education Law (Art.134), the testing of the necessary level of quality and efficiency of teaching, scientific and professional activities shall be periodically evaluated every five years. The evaluation shall be initiated by the Ministry. The evaluation process shall be carried out by expert commissions of the Ministry, and their members shall be appointed by the minister at the recommendation of the National Council. The National Council shall participate in the procedure of evaluation and determining the quality needed for an institutional accreditation to be obtained. Expert commissions shall base their assessment on the self-analysis of the institution of higher education, the opinion of professional societies and reputable international experts.The Ministry shall submit the report and assessment of expert commissions to the National Council which has to express its opinion. It is obvious that - except self-analysis, the universities play passive role in the process of assessment, which has strong top-down direction with the summative evaluation stressed. Although universities stay idle in most of the cases, without much interest to improve the quality of teaching, the attempts for improving teaching and learning at the universities may be found. Beginning 1990, the Ministry of Science funded research project "The Presumptions and Criteria of Effectiveness of University Teaching". The results (Ledi, 1990, 1992b, 1995) have showed that university professors in Croatia did not express the need for their development, while at the same time many of them do not have essential knowledge on higher education teaching methods. Teaching at Croatian universities is mostly traditional, because teachers mostly follow their educational experience and are not given information about more efficient teaching methods. In adition, university professors expressed doubt in staff development as factor for improving teaching and learning. Motivation for staff development is weak. On the other side, students expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching. It may be considered that university teaching in Croatia is issue with very serious problems. It was obvious that the indicators about the quality of teaching were negative: dissatisfied students, traditional teaching, lack of the need for the improvement, doubt in education as mean for better teaching. This led us to the conclusion that a model for improving teaching and learning at the universities at the Croatia universities should be proposed and applied. In the study previously mentioned, some recent approaches to the improvement of teaching and learning at universities were examined (TQM, reflective practitioner approach), as well as different models of staff development (Ledi, 1993, 1993, 1994). The conclusion was, that in order to improve teaching and change the institutional culture towards more responsible relations on teaching, it is necessary to develop adequate university staff development model according to the international standards, but adapted to our tradition and circumstances, and to apply the model. In 1995. we proposed a project proposal for the research The Quality of Teaching in Higher Education. The aim of this research is to explore internationally accepted criteria of quality concerning higher education (especially those closely connected with teaching competencies of higher education teachers), to find out the scope in 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 the culture of quality. According to our previous results and experience form the actual practice, we presumed that: the quality criteria, as well as higher education teaching practice in Croatia, significantly differ from the criteria accepted in international literature and practice; the quality of teaching (seen primarily through students evaluations), is not satisfactory enough. According to the results, in the second phase of our research we plan to develop a model for improving teaching and learning at the Croatian universities according to several basic assumptions: knowledge as opened, dynamic system; university staff development based on the reflective practitioner principle; continuous quality improvement based on new collegialism approach. This approach is chosen to stand as countrabalance for the almost purely external approach given at the Law on higher education. This approach considers university group as forum for academic decision making, and enlarges the group to open the discussion to others interested for the quality of teaching, primarily students. Method In order to explore the quality of teaching in higher education we developed questionnaires for exploring the opinions about the quality of teaching, for the university teachers and for the students. According to the experiences from the similar studies (Cox, 1994; McKeachie, 1987; Penner & Centra, 1993; Booth & Hyland, 1996; Cvetek, 1993; Marenti-Poarnik, 1995; Andrews, 1996; Chickering, 1987), and our own experience we prepared the list of 15 criteria, which were the core of the questionnaires. We used the list of the criteria in two main queries: to explore the teachers and students opinion about the general importance of the criteria (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to succesful university teaching), and; to explore the teachers and students opinion about the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university (teachers were assessing their own teaching practice, and students were assessing their overall experience at the university). The criteria we presented were: 1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined. Students interests are encouraged. 3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching. 4. Teachers are experts in their subject. 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject. 6. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject. 7. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students. 8. Active and independent student learning is encouraged. 9. Teachers respect students individual differences. 10. Teachers ask for feedback. 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback. 12. The assessment of students is fair and reliable. 13. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study. 14. Books and other resources are available. 15. Teachers show readiness to help.  The teachers and the students were supposed to express their opinions on the 1-5 scale , checking 1 if their opinion was that a certain activity does not influence achieving quality of teaching at all, or five if it influences it a lot, and, checking one when certain criteria is not respected at all, or five, when rexpected allways. Our intention was to examine: the difference between ideal (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to succesful university teaching ) and real (assessment about the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university) according to the teachers; the difference between ideal and real according to the students; the difference between ideal when teachers and students opinions are compared; the difference between real when teachers and students opinions are compared. 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 (EDU Rijeka), The Faculty of Education in Pula (EDU Pula), The Maritime Faculty (MARI), The Faculty of Law (LAW), and The Faculty of Engineering (ENG). For the teachers, a personalized cover letter was accompanying every questionnaire. Self-addressed envelope was provided. The questionnaires were anonymous, but the opportunity was given to fill in name and address for future communication and collaboration. Since the questionnaires were anonymous, we did not have the opportunity to re-send the questionnaires. The questionnaires were sent to every teacher fom every school at the university; the sample was chosen only at the Faculty of Medicine, because the number of the faculty greatly outnumber other schools, and - since part of our analysis will be done according to the different disciplines, we excluded a number of faculty in the field of medicine to minimise biase caused by discipline. Results a) Participants and their willingness to cooperate Table 1 shows us the participation of teachers in the research, number of questionnaires received back, and participants interests for cooperation. The percentage of received questionnaires is 35,19%, which might be considered as sufficient for the analysis. Since the questionnaires were anonymous, we did not resend them. The willingnes for obtaining the results of the research and the future cooperation is rather high (50,93%), but makes only 18, 45% of the total population. ED RijekaED PulaMEDENGCIVIL ENGECO RijekaLAWMARIHOTECO PulaTOTTOTAL NO.1204424872354428465533725 TOTAL SENT120448672354428465533563TOTAL BACK56142822111012122315203% BACK46,6731,8132,5630,5631,4322,7342,8626,0841,8245,4535,19 INTEREST30518825671611108 % INTEREST53,5735,7164,2936,3618,18505058,3369,5773,3350,93 % INTEREST FROM TOT.2511,3620,9311,115,7111,3621,4315,2229,0933,3318,45 TABLE 1: TEACHERS, NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES RECEIVED, AND PARTICIPANTS INTERESTS FOR COOPERATION Table 2 presents the number of interviewed students and their interest for cooperation. It might be seen that the students interest is rather low, only 13,43%. ED RijekaED PulaMEDENGCIVIL ENGECO RijekaLAWMARIHOTECO PulaTOTTOTAL NO. STUDENTS TOTAL QUESTION.146342919267224265835469% QUESTIONINTEREST19521714119463 % INTEREST13,0114,706,905,2626,9219,444,173,8515,5211,4313,43  TABLE 2: NUMBER OF INTERVIEWED STUDENTS AND THEIR INTEREST FOR COOPERATION b) The analysis of the criteria The 15 criteria were presented to the teachers and to the students from two aspects: ideal (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to succesful university teaching ) and real (assessment about the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university). CRITERIAMISS12345 1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.0,990,995,9123,6568,47 Students interests are encouraged.0,990,491,9714,7830,54 3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.0,992,9613,3082,764. Teachers are experts in their subject.0,990,492,4615,27 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.1,482,4614,2939,4142,366. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.1,481,972,965,9130,0557,647. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.0,490,494,4315,7634,4844,338. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.0,490,981,474,9324,6367,499. Teachers respect students individual differences.2,9614,2926,1134,4822,1710. Teachers ask for feedback.0,990,495,4217,7344,3331,03 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.0,992,467,8821,1841,3826,1112. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.1,971,483,4520,6972,4113. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.0,490,980,989,8533,9953,6914. Books and other resources are available.0,990,492,469,3633,9952,7115. Teachers show readiness to help.1,480,991,978,3730,0557,14 TABLE 3: PERCENTAGE OF CRITERIA (TEACHERS - IDEAL) Table 3, 4, 5 and 6 present the percentage for the each criteria according to the teachers and students and their assessment of ideal and real. The scale ranged from 1 to 5, and participants were supposed to chech 1 for the ideal if their opinion was that a certain activity does not influence achieving quality of teaching at all, or 5 if it influences it a lot. The same was for real. CRITERIAMISS12345 1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.1,480,999,3645,3242,86 Students interests are encouraged.1,972,9627,0946,8021,18 3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.1,470,490,996,9034,9855,174. Teachers are experts in their subject.1,971,485,9137,9352,70 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.2,961,4814,2943,3537,936. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.2,460,491,976,9032,5155,677. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.1,971,477,3924,6337,9326,608. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.1,973,4515,2736,4542,879. Teachers respect students individual differences.1,974,4313,7937,9324,1417,7310. Teachers ask for feedback.1,979,3625,1240,8922,170,49 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.1,971,9711,3325,1242,8616,7512. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.3,441,483,9432,0259,1113. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.2,461,4810,8436,4548,7714. Books and other resources are available.2,461,974,9324,1434,9831,5315. Teachers show readiness to help.2,960,491,486,4023,65  TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF CRITERIA (TEACHERS - REAL) CRITERIAMISS12345 1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.0,221,7413,9128,7055,43Students interests are encouraged.0,872,839,7826,5260.003. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.0,211,096,7432,8359,134. Teachers are experts in their subject.0,430,654,5722,6171,745. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.1,303,4817,8339,7837,616. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.0,220,221,5211,5232,1754,357. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.0,431,305,0016,9638,0438,268. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.0,220,433,0415,0034,1347,179. Teachers respect students individual differences.0,433,046,5223,7032,8333,4810. Teachers ask for feedback.2,177,1728,0442,6120,0011. Teachers respond to students' feedback.0,431,968,2623,4841,3024,5712. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.0,213,040,875,4313,2677,1713. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.0,872,6112,1739,3545,0014. Books and other resources are available.0,431,301,307,1727,1762,6115. Teachers show readiness to help.1,301,309,1335,4352,83 TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE OF CRITERIA (STUDENTS - IDEAL) CRITERIAMISS12345 1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.2,3911,3048,7032,615,00Students interests are encouraged.8,2643,4837,838,262,173. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.0,221,309,3536,5245,007,614. Teachers are experts in their subject.0,221,741,5222,1751,0923,265. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.0,433,6919,5743,7026,745,876. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.0,222,1717,6137,6135,656,747. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.11,9645,4331,3010,211,098. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.10,2131,5239,1316,093,049. Teachers respect students individual differences.28,4837,6126,095,432,3910. Teachers ask for feedback.8,0436,7437,6115,651,9611. Teachers respond to students' feedback.0,6518,9138,9133,916,301,3012. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.0,4315,0026,7436,3018,702,8313. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.0,435,4317,8339,7832,174,3414. Books and other resources are available.0,4318,7027,8331,9617,613,4815. Teachers show readiness to help.0,656,9619,3540,4325,876,73 TABLE 6: PERCENTAGE OF CRITERIA (STUDENTS - REAL) The further step in the statistical analysis was ranking the each criterion. These results are presented in tables 7 and 8. CRITERIAIDEALREALMEANSDRANKMEANSDRANK1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.4,610,6534,320,697Students interests are encouraged.4,310,83103,880,7812 3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.4,810,4714,460,7134. Teachers are experts in their subject.4,780,5024,450,684 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.4,240,79114,210,758,56. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.4,410,8674,440,7657. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.4,180,89123,820,97138. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.4,570,7454,210,838,59. Teachers respect students individual differences.3,591,07153,381,071510. Teachers ask for feedback.4,010,87134,043,7410 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.3,821,00143,620,971412. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.4,600,8044,530,72213. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.4,390,7984,360,73614. Books and other resources are available.4,370,8093,910,981115. Teachers show readiness to help.4,420,8164,560,731  TABLE 7: TEACHERS IDEALvs. REAL (MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, RANK) CRITERIAIDEALREALMEANSDRANKMEANSDRANK1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.4,370,807,53,270,823,5Students interests are encouraged. 4,420,8552,530,84123. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.4,500,6933,480,8224. Teachers are experts in their subject.4,650,6413,930,821 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.4,090,90113,120,925,56. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.4,390,7763,270,903,57. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.4,070,93122,430,87138. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.4,240,85102,700,9689. Teachers respect students individual differences.3,881,05132,160,981510. Teachers ask for feedback.3,710,94152,670,909,5 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.3,790,97142,320,901412. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.4,610,8822,671,039,513. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.4,250,8393,120,945,514. Books and other resources are available.4,490,7942,591,091115. Teachers show readiness to help.4,370,817,53,061,007  TABLE 8: TEACHERS IDEALvs. REAL (MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, RANK) CRITERIAIDEAL MEANREAL MEANTEACHERSSTUDENTSTEACHERSSTUDENTS1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.4,614,374,323,27Students interests are encouraged.4,314,423,882,533. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.4,814,504,463,484. Teachers are experts in their subject.4,784,654,453,935. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.4,244,094,213,126. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.4,414,394,443,277. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.4,184,073,822,438. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.4,574,244,212,709. Teachers respect students individual differences.3,593,883,382,1610. Teachers ask for feedback.4,013,714,042,6711. Teachers respond to students' feedback.3,823,793,622,3212. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.4,604,614,532,6713. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.4,394,254,363,1214. Books and other resources are available.4,374,493,912,5915. Teachers show readiness to help.4,424,374,563,06 TEACHERS AND STUDENTS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS CRITERIAIDEAL RANKREAL RANKTEACHERSSTUDENTSTEACHERSSTUDENTS1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.37,573,5Students interests are encouraged.10512 123. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.13324. Teachers are experts in their subject.214 1 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.11118,55,56. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.7653,57. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.121213138. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.5108,589. Teachers respect students individual differences.1513151510. Teachers ask for feedback.131510 9,5 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.1414141412. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.4229,513. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.8965,514. Books and other resources are available.94111115. Teachers show readiness to help.67,51 7  TEACHERS AND STUDENTS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RANKS Discussion a) Participants and their willingness to cooperate In the background of this research it was presented that - at least at this point - there are very few bottom up initiatives to improve the quality of teaching and learning at universities in Croatia. Since this process is - according to the Law on higher education - in a way established from the top down direction, our intention was to examine interest to be involved from another approach. According to our results, it seems that there is a critical mass of academicians who are interested in this problems. They indicated their motivation by signing the questionnaire which included data that - maybe - some of the participants would rather keep anonymous. However, what seems to be rather pesimistic is absence of students willingness to cooperate. b) The analysis of the criteria From the ranks of the ideal teaching we may shape an image of quality teaching: teachers who are well prepared for their teaching (1) and are experts in their subjects (2), who teach with clearly defined objectives (3) and assess their students fair (4). We may call this a rather traditional view on quality teaching, especially when having in mind that respect for students individual differences (15), respond to students feedback (14) and asking for feedback (13) are ranked the lowest. We may even conclude that teachers primary interests are they themselves and their subject-matter, while students are not in the center of their interest. However, the students image of quality teaching is almost the same: students value teachers - experts in their subject (1), fair assessment (2), well prepared teachers (3) and available resources (4). What they consider least important are the same criteria we found for teachers: respect for students individual differences (15), respond to students feedback (14) and asking for feedback (13). Although our research have shown that the image of quality teaching according to the teachers and according to the students is almost the same, their opinions change when the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university is assessed. Here teachers show that the main features of their actual teaching is their readiness to help (1), fair and reliable assessment (2), and well prepared teaching (3). Again, the least they manage is to respect students individual differences (15), respond to students feedback (14) and use cooperative teaching methods (13). Students think that teachers really are experts in their subjects (1), are well prepared (2), emphasize important parts of the subject (3,5) with the clearly defined objectives (3,5). The students and the teachers completely agree in the criteria which are lease respected. However, it should be noted that students no not agree with the teachers in their high assessment of their readiness to help (ranked 7) and fair assessment (ranked 9,5). This may serve as an indication that teachers and students perception about the quality of teaching substantially differ. To examine the basic difference in their assesment of the actual teaching we have to move from ranks to the percentage of the each criteria assessment. While differences between ideal among teachers and students are not significant, there is substancial difference between perception of the actual teaching practice between the teachers and the students. For example, there is substantial difference in the view on fair assessment, teachers readiness to help, encouragement of independent learning, cooperation and students interests: teachers and students do not agree in the extent in which these criteria are respected, meaning that students perceptions are substantially lower than teachers. It is significant that the crietia in which the biggerst difference is exposed are the criteria which are related to the students (more than to the teachers or to the subject matter). This leads us to the conclusion that the students are, in a way, the most neglected part in the teaching process. This is proved by the statistical tests: Wilcoxon Matched Paire test have showed us differences between teachers and students assessment: acording to the students, there is significant statistical difference in the assessment of each criterion, when compared as ideal or real. Among teachers, the differences are smaller, and for some criteria significant statistical difference between ideal and real could not be found. However, when we compare the correlations between teachers and students assessment of ideal and real teaching, then the differences are suprisingly big. Mann-Whitneys U test has showed substantial differences between several criteria; the most significant are the differences in fair assessment and readiness to help: while for teachers tthere is no significant difference between the importance of these criteria and the extent they are respected in actual practice, students estimated the biggest diference between ideal and real. CRITERIA (IDEAL VS. REAL)TEACHERSSTUDENTS1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.5,0914,83Students interests are encouraged.5,8517,333. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.6,0514,334. Teachers are experts in their subject.5,6312,265. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.0,6412,756. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.0,3514,587. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.4,9416,358. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.5,3316,139. Teachers respect students individual differences.3,2616,1410. Teachers ask for feedback.3,1613,1211. Teachers respond to students' feedback.2,2815,6512. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.1,1816,6913. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.0,8314,0114. Books and other resources are available.6,0416,7515. Teachers show readiness to help.2,5415,11 WILCOXON MATCH PAIRES TEST (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS, IDEAL VS. REAL, Z=1,96) CRITERIATEACHERS VS. STUDENTS (IDEAL)TEACHERS VS. STUDENTS (REAL)1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.3,1713,20Students interests are encouraged.1,7214,903. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.5,0312,564. Teachers are experts in their subject.2,067,415. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.1,6212,536. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.0,8213,537. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.1,3314,018. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.4,5814,929. Teachers respect students individual differences.3,2011,8910. Teachers ask for feedback.3,6811,9711. Teachers respond to students' feedback.0,4713,3212. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.0,8117,0513. Individual courses are designed so ae practitioner. London: Temple Smith) Vermunt, J. (1989). The interplay between internal and external regulation of learning and the design of process oriented instruction: Madrid:EARLI PAGE 18 PAGE 18  .Aerences.3,593,8815133,382,16151510. Teachers ask for feedback.4,013,7113153,782,6713 9,5 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.3,823,7914143,622,321414 12. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.4,604,61424,532,6729,513. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.4,394,25894,363,1265,514. Books and other resources are available.4,374,49943,912,591011 15. Teachers show readiness tow~7=FGMУڣ gg8<T^į/krs&*+=SWXlԱ|=G6ȵɵ`aʶ  xUccUVcVcU]c^xyҷӷ)*mn&(úU.N`akacfoO1:#'@E\f!E].:Ce{1gUcc5K /G4Mq>Yen E\*`v4Zrz{abZbGde!B^U`au 6` 2:JnVVa a Uc`":MU^f$={JKa;uPaP uDPVa a V; mqtYx~0CJ IĖoԗ E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6 E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6hE#6 48()  48()  48()  48() מ؞ٞE#6E#6E#6wE#6WE#6WE#6T#T#J# l# 48. #  48. #  48.  48()  48() ٞ123]^_ȟɟʟSTU۠ܠݠ################################ l# 48. !  48. yz{Сѡҡӡm}¤ggΨSST\##########E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6|E#6 48. #  48)  48.  l#ܥhW DeHL  jjjjjNk$FjXii"ΈЈЈЈ-щXWÊ*jOR JÊjj*?jjΈaKjnjjjjjΈC Topic 2. THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: CROATIAN CASE (Paper presented at the 44th ICET World Assembley Promoting Quality Teacher Education for an Interconnected World, December 15-20, 1997, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman) Jasminka Led help.4,424,3767,54,563,061 7 TABLE 2: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IDEAL AND REAL (MEANS AND RANKS) Discussion a) Participants and their willingness to cooperate In the background of this research it was presented that there are very few bottom up initiatives to improve the quality of teaching and learning at the universities in Croatia. Since this process is - according to the Law on higher education - presumed to be established mostly from the top down direction, our ii University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email: jledic@alf.tel.hr Branko Rafajac University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:brafajac@mapef.pefri.hr Vesna Kova University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:vkovac@mapef.pefri.hr Background Caused by growing demands on higher education institutions to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democratization, cuts of fonds, etc., the question of quality of university teaching is being stressed in recent decades. Several conceptualizations played its role in attempts to improve quality in higher education: quality as exceptional (Moodie, (ed.), 1986), quality as perfection or consistency (Ingle, 1985), quality as fitness for purpose (Ball, (ed.), 1985), quality as value for money (Schrock & Lefevre, 1988), quality as transformation (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Although many factors influence the quality of higher education (tradition, equipment, resources, students), the key role of higher education teachers in the improvement of higher education teaching is widely recognized. Harvey and Knight (1996 ) argue that "key to quality improvement lies in empowering academic staff to undertake a process of continuous quality improvement in relation to snEoEzE~EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE&~&'l  g<  e: #Vl g<  e: #EEEEEEEEEEEEEEF FFFFF F#F%F&~&'l  g<  e: #Vl g<  e: #%F(F*F,F.F0F2F5F8FFIFOFUF[FaFgFjFmFsFyFFFF&Vl g<  e: #FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF?G@GGGGGGGGGGHH HHHHH&E#E#;E#E#E#&l  g<  e: #'l  g<  e: #!H#H(H,H-H8HAHBHCHDHEHFHGHHHIHJHKHLHMHNH^HbHeH&&~&Vl g<  e: #'l  g<  e: #eHhHkHnHqHtHwHzH}HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH&&'l  g<  e: #HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH&Vl g<  e: #HHHHHHHHHHHHIII&cl g<  e: #II ITIUIuIJJJJJJJJJE#E#jE#6jE#6jE#6gfgpcpcpcpcpcpcp 48.  48) Vl g<  e: # JJJJJJKKKKK4K9K>KCKIKOKPKQKRKKKKKpfppppppppfppppppppfppp 48. !  48. l b: #l b: #KKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLLL!L'L-L.LeLjLoLtLyLLLLLLLLLLLL/M4M9Mppppfppppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppfppl b: #(9M>MCMIMOMPMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNN#N)N/N5N6NlNmNrNwN|NNNNNNpppppfpppppppfppppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpl b: #(NNNOO OO;O@OEOJOOOUO[O\OOOOOOOOOOOOfQgQpQuQwQyQ{Q}QQQppppppfpppppppfpppppppE#E#E#E#E#fpppppppl b: ##QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQRR R RR@RERJRORpfppppppppfppppppppfppp 48. !  48. l b: #l b: #ORTRZR`RaRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.S3S8S=SBSHSNSOSSSSSSSSSSSSppppfppppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppfppl b: #(ST TTTTLTQTVT\TbThTnToTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUU7U[C[H[M[R[X[^[pppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppp2lXb: # $^[_[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[pfpppppppE#E#E#E#fppppppppf@l Xb: #2lXb: # [[[[[[[[(\)\.\4\:\@\E\F\j\k\p\v\|\\\\\pppppppfpppppppfpppppppf 48. !  48. 2lXb: # \\\\\\\\] ]]]]]%]&]V][]`]f]l]r]w]x]]]]]]]]]^^%^+^1^pppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppp2lXb: # $1^7^<^=^w^x^~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ _ ____"_'_(_T_Y___e_k_p_u_v__pppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppf2lXb: # $________3`8`=`C`I`O`T`U``````````````````"a#aaapppppppfpppppppfpppppppfpppppppE#E#E#E#E#2lXb: # $aaaaaaaaaaaaaabb bbbbb;b@bEbHb        48. !  48. l jrz# l j#HbMbRbUbVbWbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcc c#c(c-c1c2cicncscuczc    l jrz#  48. #zcccccccccccc$d)d.d0d5d:d>d?dudzddddddddddddddddddee     l jrz# (e eeeeIeNeSeUeZe_eaebeeeeeeeee fffff"f%f&fLfQfVfXf]fbfdfefffgfff    E#E#E#l jrz# (ffffffffffffff ggggg#g'g(gLgMgE#         48. !  48. l jrz# l j#MgRgWgYg^gcgfgggggggggggggggggggg&h+h0h3h8h    48. l jrz#  48. 8h=hAhBhyh~hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh6i;i@iCiHiMiOiPiiiiiiiiiiiiii     l jrz# (iiiii jjjjj!j$j%j[j`jejgjljqjujvjjjjjjjjj"k'k,k.k3k8k;kpCpHpMpRpSpTpppppppppppppppqqq q qffE#E#E#E#f   ffl #l #" q/q2q4q7q8q;qs?s@slsosrsusxsyssssssffffffl #)tudent learning". It is widely recognized that university teaching could not be defined only as transfer of knowledge. Resulting from the growth of information and new technologies, knowledge is considered as opened, dynamic system, result of active construction of each individual and interactions between existing concepts and new experiences, which can be used in different contexts (Vermunt, J.,1989). University teacher needs to be helped through education which leads him to analyze and reflect on teaching, and not to be given final solutions, educational and psychological theories or didactic principles (Schon, D., 1987). Teaching for learning is something that might be learned, not an accident of personality. Therefore educational development is of great importance. Althoug the search for quality in higher education teaching is now regular activity for every university which attempts to take its place in future, and for many of them obligation to which they have to respond, it was the paradygmatic turnover in teories of learning that influenced the professionalization of university teaching and university staff development. Serious discussions on this topis began in Europe in 60s, with setting up many university staff development centers. In general, these programs have two goals: to qualify university staff for teaching and to improve university teaching (Berendt, 1985). Much work in this field has been done in many European countries, especially Germany, Great Britain and Netherlands. In the United \^fipsx|E#6E#6scl  S T! # 48. ?XGs to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.1,9913,6914. Books and other resources are available.1,9612,4415. Teachers show readiness to help.0,9415,28 MANN-WHITNEY U TEST (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ASSESMENT OF IDEAL AND REAL; Z=1,96) Conclusions 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, 1:81-103. McKeachie, W.J. (1986). Teaching tips: a guide book for the beginning college teachers. 8. izd. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath Booth, A. i Hyland, P. (1996). History in higher education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Chickering, A.W. i dr. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39:3-6. Cox, B. (1994). Practical pointers for university teachers. London: Kogan Page Cvetek, S. (1993). Visokokolski kurikulum. Strategije nartovanja, izvedbe in evaluacije tudentskih programov. Maribor: Dialog. Marenti-Poarnik, B. i dr. (1995). Izziv raznolikosti. Nova Gorica: Educa. Penner, J.G. i Centra, J.A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Ledi, J. (1990). University staff development: proposals for cross-cultural dialogue. Pedagoki rad. 45(4):438-443. Ledi, J. (1993). Towards new standards in higher education. Napredak, 134(2):187-196. Ledi, J. (1994). TQM - recent approach to higher education quality. Napredak, 135(4):456-465. Ledi, J. (1990). Pedagogic education of university teachers. International newsletter, 12:29-32. Ledi, J. (1992b). 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 em Main: Peter Lang Ledi, 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. Ledi, J. (1992a). An approach to university staff development. Napredak, 133(2):195-199. Ledi, J. (1993). Towards new standards in higher education, Part 1. ivot i kola, 42(2):153-160. Vermunt, J. (1989). The interplay between internal and external regulation of learning and the design of process oriented instruction: Madrid:EARLI Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith) Ball, C.J.E., (ed.). (1985). Fittness for Purpose: Essays in Higher Education. Guildford: SRHE and NFER/Nelson Moodie, C.G. (ed.). (1986). Standarsd and Criteria in Higher Education. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press Ingle, S. (1985). In Search of Perfection: How to Create/Mantain/Improve Quality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Berendt, B. (1985). Improving teaching and learning at universities. Bonn: German Foundation for International development PAGE  PAGE 8  .AOur results have shown statistically significant according to the teachers in 9 criteria (from 15). Students assessment was statistically significant in every criterion. Teachers and students are in accordance 18,quality of teaching,ents interests are encouraged. 5 f it influences it a lot, and - when actual teaching is assessed - ecking one when certain criteriona TABLE 9: TABLE 10: the 0PKLfhQ^ uy    $7[o>Vbz$%-&)30356P7w::<<=R>?BCD9E=EIEiEnEoEzEEEEEEEEEFFF F8F=F>FIFFFFFFUccUVcVc]c ]acaVccVa Uhc c$UFFFF?GG(H,HAHKHMHNH^H}HHHHHHHHHHHHIII ITIUIuIIJJJOOOPfQgQQhViVVVV[[[[[``"aaddffgfff~kkkkSpTpppttttttux"x|1}<}yzd acMacUacaUVcVcUcUcY įȯ˯ίѯԯׯگݯ l   S T! #DocumentSummaryInformation8  (Z[*+4QO./5679:@ABCDGHi͜;<>?RSrsuڝܝ 345ce&/6DfnauPaP uDPVa a U\  KL/W1OPQ^   )8(4 $(*,T//d0e0(3)303a 48()  48()  48()  48() 03_5$6/707P7|7}7~77wwtt#j#H#!  48. l# 48. #  48. #  48.  48() 777777888485868m8n8o8888888091929R9S9T9999999:: :M:N:O:###################################### l# 48. &/5;AGMSY_ekqrsl   S T! #Vl  S T! #ðɰϰհذ۰ l   S T! #Vl  S T! #O:u:v:w:x:;<>===?OABBBCDDDDDD###E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6|E#6|E#6zE#zE#zE#& 48. #  48)  48. l#ntention was to examine university teachers own motivation for the improvement of teaching. According to our results, it seems that there is a critical mass of academicians who are interested in this problem. They indicated their motivation by signing the questionnaire which included data that some of the participants would rather keep anonymous. However, what seems to be rather pessimistic is the absence of students willingness to cooperate. Partly, this could be explained by the circumstances in which #&*+=@BDFHKMOQSVW'l   S T! #X they were supposed to answer the questions. b) The analysis of the criteria From the ranks of the ideal teaching we may shape an image of quality teaching: teachers who are well prepared for their teaching (1) and are experts in their subjects (2), who teach with clearly defined objectives (3) and assess their students fair (4). We may call this a rather traditional view on quality teaching, especially when having in mind that respect for students individual differences (15), respond to students feedY\_bfgw}l   S T! #Vl  S T! #  #)/5;<=Ol   S T! #Vl  S T! #OSVY\_behknrs'l   S T! #cl  S T! # 3 d m s x y z     E#E#E#6uE#6qJ q$ q$ [$ XJ qqqql  # 48. cl  S T! #                        #!J J J !  48. l  u4q0 #l  40##!(!-!0!2!7!EIEMEPETEWEZE]E`EcEfEiEmEnE&'l  g<  e: #WXlrx}cl  S T! #Աձֱ{|E#E#E#E#E#6E#6uE#6TE#6TE#6TE#6PJ P$ P$   48.  48. cl  S T! # spond to students' feedback.14140,471414 13,3212. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.420,8129,517,0513. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.891,9965,513,6914. Books and other resources are available.941,961011 12,4415. Teachers show readiness to help.67,50,941 715,28 TABLE 4: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ASSESMENT OF IDEAL AND REAL; SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL Z=1,96; p<0,05) sWe b !%)-156bglnrw|~$ J J J  l  u4q0 #l  40#l  #elieve that students assessment in this case could be understood as an indicator that teaching at this university does not - to sufficient extent - respond to the qulity criteria, and is not favouring the students. 18 .Aate professor, full professor). ia where the biggethose , 135(4):456-465.theds 18 .ABCDIJKMNOnrs{   & 0 1 2 3 ^ _ ` a c d    C!D!!!!!/"0"""""M#N#####6$7$$$%%[%\%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&"&\&v&}&&&&&&&&acUUccVc_&&&&&&&&&''')'='K'U'V'b'f'r't'u'v'z'{'|'}''''''''''''''''''''''''''((((!(&(,(-(Q(T(X(](_(b(h(i((((((((((((((((()")&)+).)3)9):)q)s)u)z)|)))acab))))))))))&*(*,*1*4*6*<*=*s*v*y*~*****************++ + +A+C+E+J+L+P+V+W++++++++++,,, ,,,,;,=,@,E,I,K,Q,R,S,\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Uaacb,,,,,,,,,,,,,,---- -------@-B-F-K-M-R-X-Y-}----------------.. ......J.M.P.U.Y.^.d.e..........// / ////Q/S/V/[/_/a/g/h////////////aacc//////0 0#0(0+0/05060l0n0p0u0w0{00000000000)1+1-1215191?1@1f1h1l1q1t1v1|1}1~1111111111112222H2Q2s2w22222222233333"3'31363738393:3;3<3=3>3?3@3A3B3a cuPaUaca^ "%(+/0DGJMPSVY~l   S T! #cl  S T! #ĵŵȵɵ BGLNPUZJ J J  l  u4q0 # 48. !  48. Z\]_`a  X]behmruxyJ J J J  l  u4q0 #'ld prevent us from drawing firm conclusions from our results. What gives us the argument for taking students assessment of real teaching seriously is the fact that the students and the teachers mostly agree when their vision of ideal teachers is examined. If we take students assessments in this part as reliable, we may do the same when the real is assessed. We believe that students assessment in this case could be understood as an indicator that teaching at this university does not - to a sufficient extent - respond to the quality criteria, and is not favouring the students. We consider that our results must be taken as a serious warning that some actions for the improving the quality of university teaching should be taken. This study is to be followed by examining teachers needs in the improvement of teaching and establishing the process of the improvement of teaching at the universities as a continuous process. 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, 1:81-103. Ball, C.J.E., (ed.). (1985). Fitness for Purpose: Essays in Higher Education. Guildford: SRHE and NFER/Nelson Berendt, B. (1985). Improving teaching and learning at universities. Bonn: German Foundation for International development Booth, A. & Hyland, P. (1996). History in higher education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Chickering, A.W. & dr. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39:3-6. Cox, B. (1994). Practical pointers for university teachers. London: Kogan Page Cvetek, S. (1993). Visokokolski kurikulum. Strategije nartovanja, izvedbe in evaluacije tudentskih programov. Maribor: Dialog. Ingle, S. (1985). In Search of Perfection: How to Create/Maintain/Improve Quality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Ledi, J. (1990). University staff development: proposals for cross-cultural dialogue. Pedagoki rad. 45(4):438-443. Ledi, J. (1990). Pedagogic education of university teachers. International newsletter, 12:29-32. Ledi, J. (1992a). An approach to university staff development. Napredak, 133(2):195-199. Ledi, J. (1992b). 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 em Main: Peter Lang Ledi, J. (1993). Towards new standards in higher education. Napredak, 134(2):187-196. Ledi, J. (1993). Towards new standards in higher education, Part 1. ivot i kola, 42(2):1ࡱ> sst t"t$t(t)tVtXtZt]t`tatttttttttttttux"x;|ȀzfffE#E#E#E#6E#6E#6E#6 E#6 E#6E#6f"" 48. l #"ӈ؈ވ߈AFLMw|O"f"""f"""f"""f"""f"""f"""f 48. !  48. l l OTZ[׊܊;@FG}&+12X]cdeٌ"""f"""f"""f"""f"""f"""f"""f"""f"""E#E#E#E#fl *#(./SX^_Ǎ̍эҍ EJPQfffffff 48. !  48. l Jl J&+12RW]^̏я׏؏<AGHuz 'ffffffffE#E#E#E#E#E#E#l J*'(ۑܑZ[*+z{JKZ[uvNO34<=,-E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#,--.789DEFGH<s !EE#E##E#6E#6 E#6E#6!  48. h`%!K"@"Normal ]`a c&@& Heading 1 ]`cX*@* Heading 2 ]`c@"A@"Default Paragraph Font @ Footer 9r )@ Page Number @ Header 9r university teachers own motivation for the improvement of teaching. are interested in this problemto do d should be noted that students dtersss to help: while for teachers TABLE 11: The difference between sof ideal and ....J.M.P.U.Y.].^.d.e..........// / ////Q/S/V/[/_/a/g/h/////XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXl  L|#(///////////////0 0#0(0+0.0/05060l0n0p0u0w0{00000000000)1XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX l  L|#()1+1-121518191?1@1f1h1l1q1s1t1v1|1}1~111233337383:3;3<3=3>3XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXE#E#E#E#E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#E#E#E#E#,  48. l  L|# '()*+,-./01234567IB3C3D3E3V3X3Z3[3\3]3_33uPaVa a  >3?3@3A3B3C3D3E3\3]3E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#, Topic 2. THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CROATIAN CASE (Paper presented at the 44th ICET World Assembley Promoting Quality Teacher Education for an Interconnected World, December 15-20, 1997, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman) Jasminka Ledi University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email: jledic@alf.tel.hr Branko Rafajac University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:brafajac@mapef.pefri.hr Vesna Kova University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:vkovac@mapef.pefri.hr Background Because of growing demands on higher education institutions to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democratization, reduced funds, etc., the question of quality of university teaching has been stressed in recent decades. Several conceptualizations played their role in attempts to improve quality in higher education: quality as exceptional (Moodie, (ed.), 1986), quality as perfection or consistency (Ingle, 1985), quality as fitness for purpose (Ball, (ed.), 1985), quality as value for money (Schrock & Lefevre, 1988), quality as transformation (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Although many factors influence on the quality of higher education (tradition, equipment, resources, students), the key role of higher education teachers in the improvement of higher education teaching is widely recognized. Harvey and Knight (1996 ) argue that "key to quality improvement lies in empowering academic staff to undertake a process of continuous quality improvement in relation to student learning". It is widely recognized that university teaching could not be defined only as transfer of knowledge. As the result of growing information and new technologies, knowledge is considered as open, dynamic system, the result of active construction of each individual and interactions between existing concepts and new experiences, which can be used in different contexts (Vermunt, J.,1989). University teacher needs to be helped through education which leads him to analyze and reflect on teaching, and not to be given final solutions, educational and psychological theories or didactic principles (Schon, D., 1987). Teaching for learning is something that might be learned, not an accident of personality. Therefore educational development is of great importance. Although the search for quality in higher education teaching is now regular activity for every university which attempts to achieve a significant position in future, and for many of them it is also an obligation to which they have to respond, it was the paradigmatic turnover in theories of learning that influenced the professionalization of university teaching and university staff development. Serious discussions on these topics began in Europe in 60s, when many university staff development centers were being set up. In general, these programs have two goals: to qualify university staff for teaching and to improve university teaching (Berendt, 1985). Much work in this field has been done in many European countries, especially Germany, Great Britain and Netherlands. In the United States, in spite of emphasized research activity of (elite) universities, university staff development centers are widely developed. Universities in Australia and New Zealand are well-known for their search for quality in teaching, and it could be stated that this movement has become global. However, even today there are areas where improving quality of teaching is still not considered as important activity. In Croatia (now independent republic which was part of former Yugoslavia), and its four universities, the initiatives for improving teaching in higher education exist only as sporadic and periodical activity. The reasons for such a situation are several. One of the most important factors for neglecting the quality of teaching is well know dispute about the relationship between research and teaching activities at the universities. The stereotype opinion that a man of science, an expert in the field, is automatically also a good teacher is rather strong. What demotivates the initiatives for improving teaching and learning is also the legal aspect of the problem: although proclaiming that research and teaching have equal importance at the universities, in the process of election and re-election of university teachers it is research that prevails (Ledi, 1992). According to the Law on higher education, for the most of the 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 the change and transform according to the needs of modern society, and are rather answering only to legislative demands for their accountability. As mentioned before, there are four universities in Croatia: the biggest and the oldest University of Zagreb, (founded 1874, 45010 students in 1995), the Josip Juraj Strossmayer University in Osijek (founded 1975, 6 343 students), the University of Split (founded 1974, 9763 students), and University of Rijeka (founded 1973, 7 657 students). Although the Law on higher education declares different sources for financing higher education (foundations and donations, tuition fees and scholarships, other sources if they are in accordance with the function of the institution of higher education), the vast majority of higher education is financed from the budget of the Republic of Croatia. According to the Law, university teachers are classified into the two groups: auxiliary teaching staff (expert associate, junior assistant, assistant and senior assistant) and teaching staff (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor). One of the bodies which are entitled to guide the directions for the development of higher education in Croatia is The Rectors Conference. The members of this body are rectors of all the universities, and - among other activities - the Conference establishes conditions for the assessment of teaching and professional activities in the process of university teachers election. This means that the criteria and the election procedure is not left to discretion of a particular university. The National Council for Higher Education (president and 18 members appointed by the Parliament), is founded in order to take care of the development of the higher education system. It shall give its opinions, proposals and recommendations to institutions of higher education, to the Ministry and to other state bodies with the aim of ensuring the qualitative and successful functioning of the higher education system. (Art.132, HE Law). The Ministry shall obtain from the National Council an opinion and initiative for introducing new or abolishing existing programs, courses of study and institutions of higher education. Having in mind this very important role of the National Council for Higher Education, and Ministry of Science as main (almost exclusive) source for financing higher education, it may be considered that the autonomy of Croatian universities is rather restrained. In addition, the universities usually do not take proactive position in the evaluation procedure. According to the Higher Education Law (Art.134), the testing of the necessary level of quality and efficiency of teaching, scientific and professional activities shall be evaluated every five years. The evaluation shall be initiated by the Ministry. The evaluation process shall be carried out by expert commissions of the Ministry, and their members shall be appointed by the minister at the recommendation of the National Council. The National Council shall participate in the procedure of evaluation and is going to determine the quality needed for an institutional accreditation to be obtained. Expert commissions shall base their assessment on the self-analysis of the institution of higher education, the opinion of professional societies and reputable international experts. The Ministry shall submit the report and assessment of expert commissions to the National Council which has to express its opinion. It is obvious that - except self-analysis, the universities play passive role in the process of assessment, which has strong top-down direction with the summative evaluation stressed. Although universities stay idle in most of the cases, without much interest to improve the quality of teaching, the attempts for improving teaching and learning at the universities in Croatia may be found. Beginning in 1990, the Ministry of Science funded research project "The Presumptions and Criteria of Effectiveness of University Teaching". The results (Ledi, 1990, 1992b, 1995) have shown that university professors in Croatia did not express the need for their development, while at the same time many of them do not have essential knowledge on higher education teaching methods. Teaching at Croatian universities is in the most cases traditional, because teachers mostly follow their educational experience and are not given information about more efficient teaching methods. In addition, university professors expressed doubt in staff development as factor for improving teaching and learning. Motivation for staff development is weak. On the other side, students expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching. It may be considered that university teaching in Croatia is issue with very serious problems. It is obvious that the indicators of the quality of teaching have been negative: dissatisfied students, traditional teaching, lack of the need for the improvement, doubt in education 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 areal Our opinion is that the most indicative result of our study could be seen when the assessment between ideal and real from the teachers and studentsside is compared. The results of Mann-Whitney U test show that t and students do not substantially differ when ideal teaching is assessed: the difference is statistically significant in 7 criteria (from 15). However, when we come to the assessment of real teaching, then the results are completely different: there is statistically significant difference in every criterion, and the numbers from the test show that the differences regarding some of the criteria could be called radical (for example, for the faireness of teachers assessment and their readiness to help). A lot of questions concerning students reliability in the assessment of teaching could be put, that would prevent us from drawing firm conclusions from our results. What gives us the argument for taking students assessment of real teaching seriously is the fact that the students and the teachers mostly agree when their vision of ideal teachers is examined. If we take students assessments in this part as reliable, we may to do the same when the real in assessed. We consider that our results must be taken as a serious warning that some actions for the improvement of the quality of university teaching should be undertaken. This study is to be followed by examining teachers needs in the improvement of teaching and establishing the process of the improvement of teaching at the universities as a continuous process. 20 .A For the students we used different approach. Our intention was to question students who attended their third year of study at the university. The third year was chosen because we presumed that these students have enough experience with the university teaching. At the same time they are far enough from finishing their course work that they may be motivated and involved in the process of the university teaching improvement. Withnotz{&-/jqr :Uy Ck0167Yabco4?HRWinad !#DEpFHcw34BF R_~  +/0:CDbfgmvw5<=BUccUVcVcuPaa] the agreement and help of the deans of every school at the university, our team had precise appointments in which the questioning had to be done. Usually, they were left about 10 minutes to fill-in the questionnaire. It might happen that some of them needed more time, and were not in the position to think seriously about the questions.and students received back, and participant interest the back from the teachers ).SCHOOLSED RijekaED PulaMEDENGCIVIL ENGECO RijekaLAWMARIHOTECO PulaTOTTOTAL SENT TEACHERS120448672354428465533563TOTAL BACK TEACHERS56142822111012122315203% BACK TEACHERS46,6731,8132,5630,5631,4322,7342,8626,0841,8245,4535,19 INTEREST TEACHERS30518825671611108 % INTEREST TEACHERS53,5735,7164,2936,3618,18505058,3369,5773,3350,93 TOTAL QUEST. STU.146342919267224265835469INTEREST STUDENTS19521714119463 % INTEREST STUDENTS13,0114,706,905,2626,9219,444,173,8515,5211,4313,43  TABLE 1. SAMPLE: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS The table also shows t The first step in our analysis was to count TT 2 CRITERIAIDEALREALMEANRANKMEANRANKTEASTUTEASTUTEASTUTEASTU1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.4,614,3737,54,323,2773,5 Students interests are encouraged.4,314,421053,882,5311 123. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.4,814,50134,463,48324. Teachers are experts in their subject.4,784,65214,453,934 1 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.4,244,0911114,213,128,55,5 6. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.4,414,39764,443,2753,57. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.4,184,0712123,822,4312138. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.4,574,245104,212,708,589. Teachers respect students individual differences.3,593,8815133,382,16151510. Teachers ask for feedback.4,013,7113153,782,6713 9,5 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback.3,823,7914143,622,321414 12. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.4,604,61424,532,6729,513. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.4,394,25894,363,1265,514. Books and other resources are available.4,374,49943,912,591011 15. Teachers show readiness to help.4,424,3767,54,563,061 7 TABLE 2: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IDEAL AND REAL (MEANS AND RANKS) presumed to be established mostly as Partly, this could be explained by the circumstances in which they were supposed to answer to the questions. ss ings Tactually similar to their opinion about the unimportance of criteria:to ask for feedbackfor their teaching are in agreement when are considered1 from teachers and from studentsranked 2 from teachers and from students real (Table 3) (Table 4) TEACHERSSTUDENTSCRITERIA RANK (IDEAL)RANK (REAL)ZRANK (IDEAL)RANK (REAL)Z1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.375,097,53,5 14,83Students interests are encouraged.1011 5,8551217,333. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.136,053214,334. Teachers are experts in their subject.24 5,6311 12,265. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.118,50,64115,5 12,756. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.750,3563,514,587. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.12124,94121316,358. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.58,55,3310816,139. Teachers respect students individual differences.15153,26131516,1410. Teachers ask for feedback.1313 3,16159,5 13,1211. Teachers respond to students' feedback.14142,281414 15,6512. The assessment of students is fair and reliable.421,1829,516,6913. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study.860,8395,514,0114. Books and other resources are available.9106,04411 16,7515. Teachers show readiness to help.61 2,547,5715,11 TABLE 3: WILCOXON MATCH PAIRES TEST (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS, IDEAL VS. REAL, SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL Z=1,96; p<0,05) IDEALREALCRITERIA RANK (TEA)RANK (STU)ZRANK (TEA)RANK (STU)Z1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.37,53,1773,5 13,20Students interests are encouraged.1051,7211 1214,903. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.135,033212,564. Teachers are experts in their subjnd 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 (Ledi, 1993, 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 the iect.212,064 1 7,415. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.11111,628,55,5 12,536. Teachers emphasize important parts of the subject.760,8253,513,537. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.12121,33121314,018. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.5104,588,5814,929. Teachers respect students individual differences.15133,20151511,8910. Teachers ask for feedback.13153,6813 9,5 11,9711. Teachers renternational standards, but adapted to our tradition and circumstances. In 1995 we proposed a project proposal for the research The Quality of Teaching in Higher Education. 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 scope in which these criteria are respected in Croatian higher education, and, finally, according to these results,·Ƿ̷зҷӷ #&)*JOTWZ_dghlmnJ J J  l  u4q0 #''      !"#$%8()*+,-./01234567I9:;<=>@ABCDEFHIJ  uzƹ˹͹ϹԹٹܹ߹ !J J J J  l  u4q0 #'!#$&'(ú-.NkE#E#E#E#E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6 E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6     Xl  # 48.  l  u4q0 #   !EHKLQSV\]XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX 48. !  48. l  L|#"&'-.eginptz{XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXl  L|#( %(*01gjmrux~579>@ XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXl  L|#(@DJK /1349=?EFGXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXE#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#l  L|#'46:?AEFLMqE#E#     XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX !  48. l  L|#l  #qtv{~ >ADIMQRXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXl  L|# 48. "XY  EGJOSU[\X XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXl  L|#("#)*`bdikouv!&),-34Z\`XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXl  L|#(`eghjpqrjkUV%&uvmnFXXXXXXE#E#E#E#E#E#6E#6 E#6E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#,l  L|#%FGghxy$%<=&'E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#h`%,&!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! 3J&F/555o<DDJDRZbglu~ `P1       Y0C"-02344444441535]5_5555566S6U666666677y7{777777m9}::;g;g=>S@SCTC\CC^EfEiEpEsExE|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFF FFFFFFF/F5F;FAFGFMFSFYF_FeFkFqFsFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFG GGGGGGG G#G&G+G=G@GBGDGFGHGKGMGOGQGSGVGXGlGrGxG}GGGGGGGGGGGGGG{H|HHJJJJJJJK KKKKKK!K%K)K-K1K6KbKgKlKnKrKwK|K~KKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL LLLLLBLGLLLNLPLULZL\L]L_LaLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMM MXM]MbMeMhMmMrMuMyMMMMMMMMMM NNNNNN#N&N*NJNONTNWNZN_NdNgNhNlNnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOO O OOuOzOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP PPPPP!P#P$P'P(PPPPPP-T.TNTkX]bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbc c ccccc!cEcHcKcLcQcScVc]cccccccccccccccccdddd"d&d'd.dedgdidndpdtd{ddddddddee e%e(e*e1egejemereuexeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee5f7f9f>f@fDfKfffffffffffffgg g/g1g3g4g9g=g?gFgGgggggggggggggggggggghh4h6h:h?hAhEhFhMhqhthvh{h~hhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiii>iAiDiIiMiQiRiYiiiiiiiiiiiijj jEjGjJjOjSjUj\jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkkkkk"k#k*k`kbkdkikkkokvkkkkkkkkll!l&l)l,l-l4lZl\l`lelglhljlqlrlllllnquuuukvVwwx|= E#6E#6E#6E#6 E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6##############################E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#E#E#E#E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6J $ $ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J E#E#E#E#E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6 E#6E#6 E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6    XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXE#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#    XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXE#E#E#E#E#E#6E#6 E#6E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#FnB&),/B3xOPQ037O:DnEE%FFHeHHHIJK9MNQORSUV/W/XY^[[\1^_aHbzcefMg8hipkPlmo q$rsO'-YO #!"N#$%Q(9)*?,M-./)1>3 mٞ\WZ!@qX`FRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     ?UnknownDavor TomakoviUprava za informatikuarbor !!€πЀ݀ހCJasminka Ledic1C:\My Documents\Moji radovi (A-M)\ICET 97 rad.doc@HP LaserJet 4LLPT1:HPPCL5MSHP LaserJet 4LHP LaserJet 4L@g ,,@MSUDHP LaserJet 4L>[`dHP LaserJet 4L@g ,,@MSUDHP LaserJet 4L>[`d2222 $ 2 3 \d!!W%_%t//=0?0@0D0E0e0g011a13\3f33355w8~8879=9F9G9M999: :====>>8@<@AADDDEEEE=IGIJLLPUSSSSSSSST`VaVkXXYYYaZcZf[o[[[[\\O^^^^^^^^^^1_:_``aa#b'b@bEb\bfb:dCdeinimmmmaoboZqbqGsdsessst!tttttuvv`wawww2y:y||||JK€ɀʀ̀πЀ؀ڀ܀݀ހ߀PjQuQ$uQ2uP3uQ}P}PQڃPQ\PdQQQPQWP_QtQQ=Q?Q@QDQEQePgQQPaQQ\PfQPQPQwQ~QQ7Q=QFQGPMQУQڣQP QQQPQQQ8P<QPQQQQQQPQ=QGPQPʶQQUQQQQQQQPQ`PaQkQQQQQaQcQfQoQQQQPQOQQQQQQQQQQ1Q:QQQQQ#Q'Q@QEQ\PfQ:PCQePnQQQPQaQbQZPbQGQdQeQQQQ!QQQPPQPQ`PaQPQ2P:QQQPQJPKPQQQPPQQPPPPPXTimes New Roman Symbol &ArialTimes New Roman CE Tms Rmn"1hpc&+j6!In recent decades, caused by growing demands on higher education institution to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democratization, cuts of fonds, etcJasminka LedicJasminka Ledicࡱ> ܥhW TeHS€  *****zDN+,zDzDzDD^DbzDRXGG(GGGGGGHHHH-KHIIjRXRJ*GOReGGGGJG**GJG? to develop a model of university staff development, which aims to build up the culture of quality. According to our previous results and experience form the actual practice, we presumed that: the quality criteria, as well as higher education teaching practice in Croatia, differ significantly from the criteria accepted in international literature and practice; the quality of teaching (seen primarily through students evaluations), is not satisfactory enough. According to the results, in the second phase of our research we plan to develop a model for improving teaching and learning at the Croatian universities according to several basic assumptions: knowledge as opened, dynamic system; university staff development based on the reflective practitioner principle; continuous quality improvement based on new collegialism approach. This approach is chosen to stand as counterbalance for the almost purely external approach given in the Law on higher education. This approach considers university group as a forum for academic decision making and it enlarges the group to open discussion to others interested in the quality of teaching, primarily students. Method In order to explore the quality of teaching in higher education, we developed questionnaires for exploring the opinions on quality of teaching for university teachers and for students. According the experiences from the similar studies (Cox, 1994; McKeachie, 1987; Penner & Centra, 1993; Booth & Hyland, 1996; Cvetek, 1993; Marenti-Poarnik, 1995; Andrews, 1996; Chickering, 1987), and our own experience, we prepared the list of 15 criteria, which were the core of the questionnaires. We used the list of the criteria in two main queries: to explore the 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; to explore the teachers and students opinion on the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university (teachers were assessing their own teaching practice, and students were assessing their overall experience at the university). The criteria we presented were: 1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined. Students interests are encouraged. 3. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching. 4. Teachers are experts in their subject. 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject. 6. Teachers emphasise important parts of the subject. 7. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students. 8. Active and independent student learning is encouraged. 9. Teachers respect students individual differences. 10. Teachers ask for feedback. 11. Teachers respond to students' feedback. 12. The assessment of students is fair and reliable. 13. Individual courses are designed so as to contribute integrally to a students subject of study. 14. Books and other resources are available. 15. Teachers show readiness to help.  The teachers and the students were supposed to express their opinions on the 1-5 scale , checking 1 if their opinion was that a certain activity does not influence on the achieving quality of teaching at all, or 5 if it influences a lot, and - when actual teaching is assessed - checking one when certain criterion is not respected at all, or five, when it is respected always. 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 teachers; the difference between ideal and real according to the students; the difference between ideal when teachers and students opinions are compared; the difference between real when teachers and students opinions are compared. 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 (EDU Rijeka), The Faculty of Education in Pula (EDU Pula), The Maritime Faculty (MARI), The Faculty of Law (LAW), and The Faculty of Engineering (ENG). For the teachers, a personalized cover letter accompanied every questionnaire. Self-addressed envelope was provided. The questionnaires were anonymous, but the opportunity was given to fill in name and address for future communication and collaboration. Since the questionnaires were anonymous, we did not have the opportunity to re-send the questionnaires. The questionnaires were sent to every teacher from every school at the university; the sample was chosen only at the Faculty of Medicine, because the number of the faculty greatly outnumber other schools, and - since a part of our analysis will be done according to the different disciplines, we excluded a number of faculty in the field of medicine to minimise bias caused by discipline. For the students we used different approach. Our intention was to question students who attended their third year of study at the university. The third year was chosen because we presumed that these students have enough experience with the university teaching. At the same time they are far enough from finishing their course work so they may be motivated and involved in the process of the university teaching improvement. With the agreement and help of the deans of every school at the university, our team had precise appointments in which the questioning had to be done. Usually, they were left about 10 minutes to fill-in the questionnaire. It might happen that some of them needed more time, and were not in the position to think seriously about the questions. Results a) Participants and their willingness to cooperate Table 1 shows the participation of teachers and students in the research, number of questionnaires received back, and participants interest in cooperation. The percentage of the questionnaires received back from the teachers is 35,19%, which might be considered as sufficient for the analysis. Since the questionnaires were anonymous, we did not resend them. The interest in obtaining results of the research and the future cooperation is rather high (50,93). SCHOOLSED RijekaED PulaMEDENGCIVIL ENGECO RijekaLAWMARIHOTECO PulaTOTTOTAL SENT TEACHERS120448672354428465533563TOTAL BACK TEACHERS56142822111012122315203% BACK TEACHERS46,6731,8132,5630,5631,4322,7342,8626,0841,8245,4535,19 INTEREST TEACHERS30518825671611108 % INTEREST TEACHERS53,5735,7164,2936,3618,18505058,3369,5773,3350,93 TOTAL QUEST. STU.146342919267224265835469INTEREST STUDENTS19521714119463 % INTEREST STUDENTS13,0114,706,905,2626,9219,444,173,8515,5211,4313,43  TABLE 1. SAMPLE: TEACHERS AND STUDENTS The table also shows the number of interviewed students and their interest for cooperation. It might be seen that the students interest is rather low, only 13,43%. b) The analysis of the criteria The 15 criteria were presented to the teachers and to the students from two aspects: ideal (assessment of the relevance and contribution of each criterion to successful university teaching ) and real (assessment about the extent in which every criterion is respected in actual teaching at the university). The first step in our analysis was to count the percentage for the each criteria according to the teachers and students and their assessment of ideal and real. The further step in the statistical analysis was ranking each criterion. These results are presented in Table 2. CRITERIAIDEALREALMEANRANKMEANRANKTEASTUTEASTUTEASTUTEASTU1. Teaching objectives are clearly defined.4,614,3737,54,323,2773,5 Students interests are encouraged.4,314,421053,882,5311 123. Teachers are well prepared for their teaching.4,814,50134,463,48324. Teachers are experts in their subject.4,784,65214,453,934 1 5. Teachers are enthusiastic for their subject.4,244,0911114,213,128,55,5 6. Teachers emphasise important parts of the subject.4,414,39764,443,2753,57. Teaching methods are used which encourage active cooperation by students.4,184,0712123,822,4312138. Active and independent student learning is encouraged.4,574,245104,212,708,589. Teachers respect students individual diffGGGG(*G*GH(`*n*****GHGCG Topic 2. THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: CROATIAN CASE (Paper presented at the 44th ICET World Assembley Promoting Quality Teacher Education for an Interconnected World, December 15-20, 1997, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman) Jasminka Ledi University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email: jledic@alf.tel.hr Branko Rafajac University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:brafajac@mapef.pefri.hr Vesna Kova University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:vkovac@mapef.pefri.hr Background Caused by growing demands on higher education institutions to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democratization, cuts of fonds, etc., the question of quality of university teaching is being stressed in recent decades. Several conceptualizations played its role in attempts to improve quality in higher education: quality as exceptional (Moodie, (ed.), 1986), quality as perfection or consistency (Ingle, 1985), quality as fitness for purpose (Ball, (ed.), 1985), quality as value for money (Schrock & Lefevre, 1988), quality as transformation (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Although many factors influence the quality of higher education (tradition, equipment, resources, students), the key role of higher education teachers in the improvement of higher education teaching is widely recognized. Harvey and Knight (1996 ) argue that "key to quality improvement lies in empowering academic staff to undertake a process of continuous quality improvement in relation to student learning". It is widely recognized that university teaching could not be defined only as transfer of knowledge. Resulting from the growth of information and new technologies, knowledge is considered as opened, dynamic system, result of active construction of each individual and interactions between existing concepts and new experiences, which can be used in different contexts (Vermunt, J.,1989). University teacher needs to be helped through education which leads him to analyze and reflect on teaching, and not to be given final solutions, educational and psychological theories or didactic principles (Schon, D., 1987). Teaching for learning is something that might be learned, not an accident of personality. Therefore educational development is of great importance. Althoug the search for quality in higher education teaching is now regular activity for every university which attempts to take its place in future, and for many of them obligation to which they have to respond, it was the paradygmatic turnover in teories of learning that influenced the professionalization of university teaching and university staff development. Serious discussions on this topis began in Europe in 60s, with setting up many university staff development centers. In general, these programs have two goals: to qualify university staff for teaching and to improve university teaching (Berendt, 1985). Much work in this field has been done in many European countries, especially Germany, Great Britain and Netherlands. In the United ....J.M.P.U.Y.].^.d.e..........// / ////Q/S/V/[/_/a/g/h/////XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXl  L|#(///////////////0 0#0(0+0.0/05060l0n0p0u0w0{00000000000)1XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX l  L|#()1+1-121518191?1@1f1h1l1q1s1t1v1|1}1~111233337383:3;3<3=3>3XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXE#E#E#E#E#6E#6E#6E#6E#6E#E#E#E#E#,  48. l  L|# B3C3D3E3V3X3Z3[3\3]3_33jjOjPjjjljjkkkUlblm mn|opqstu$u2u3u}}~~23GlڃC\dC(W_t=?@DEega\fVccVUhc c$uPaVa a Z>3?3@3A3B3C3D3E3\3]3jjj j jjjOjPjjjjjk3k[kkkkkkkl5lSlTlUlbllllmm mE#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#{E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#E#,+ Topic 2. THE QUALITY OF TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CROATIAN CASE (Paper presented at the 44th ICET World Assembley Promoting Quality Teacher Education for an Interconnected World, December 15-20, 1997, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman) Jasminka Ledi University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email: jledic@alf.tel.hr Branko Rafajac University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:brafajac@mapef.pefri.hr Vesna Kova University of Rijeka, School of Education Omladinska 14, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia Phone: ++385 51 516322, Fax: ++385 51 515142 Email:vkovac@mapef.pefri.hr Background Because of growing demands on higher education institutions to be accountable and to adapt to the rapid change of technologies, higher education democratization, reduced funds, etc., the question of quality of university teaching has been stressed in recent decades. Several conceptualizations played their role in attempts to improve quality in higher education: quality as exceptional (Moodie, (ed.), 1986), quality as perfection or consistency (Ingle, 1985), quality as fitness for purpose (Ball, (ed.), 1985), quality as value for money (Schrock & Lefevre, 1988), quality as transformation (Harvey and Knight, 1996). Although many factors influence on the quality of higher education (tradition, equipment, resources, students), the key role of hier education: a study of excellent professors and their students. Teaching in higher education, 1:81-103. Ball, C.J.E., (ed.). (1985). Fitness for Purpose: Essays in Higher Education. Guildford: SRHE and NFER/Nelson Berendt, B. (1985). Improving teaching and learning at universities. Bonn: German Foundation for International development Booth, A. & Hyland, P. (1996). History in higher education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Chickering, A.W. & dr. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39:3-6. Cox, B. (1994). Practical pointers for university teachers. London: Kogan Page Cvetek, S. (1993). Visokokolski kurikulum. Strategije nartovanja, izvedbe in evaluacije tudentskih programov. Maribor: Dialog. Ingle, S. (1985). In Search of Perfection: How to Create/Maintain/Improve Quality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Ledi, J. (1990). University staff development: proposals for cross-cultural dialogue. Pedagoki rad. 45(4):438-443. Ledi, J. (1990). Pedagogic education of university teachers. International newsletter, 12:29-32. Ledi, J. (1992a). An approach to university staff development. Napredak, 133(2):195-199. Ledi, J. (1992b). 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 em Main: Peter Lang Ledi, J. (1993). Towards new standards in higher education. Napredak, 134(2):187-196. Ledi, J. (1993). Towards new standards in higher education, Part 1. ivot i kola, 42(2):153-160. Marenti-Poarnik, B. et al. (1995). Izziv raznolikosti. Nova Gorica: Educa. Ledi, J. (1994). TQM - recent approach to higher education quality. Napredak, 135(4):456-465. Ledi, J. (1995). Faculty (staff) development for improving teaching and learning in higher education: Croatian experience. ERIC databa