Self-evaluation of excellence of didactical-methodical organization of university teaching

Abstract

The total excellence of university teaching largely depends on pedagogical and didactical­methodical competencies of university professors. The development and promotion of academic teaching is enabled by the modernization of the teaching process which does not encompass only modernization of curriculum but the entire didactical­methodical organization of teaching. Pleasure and requirements of students are to be accentuated accordingly, as well as competencies of teachers and expectations of labor market. The purpose of this paper is to establish which element of didactical­methodical organization of university teaching is the most important dimension of excellence of teaching as well as in what way university professors perform self­evaluation of the excellence of didactical­methodical organization of teaching at the University of Tuzla. The analytical­descriptive survey method was used as a variant of analytical­descriptive method as well as procedures of analysis of contents and polling. It is supposed that there is statistically significant difference in self­evaluation of the importance of elements of excellence in didactical­methodical organization of teaching at the University of Tuzla and that self­evaluations of the importance of individual elements of excellence of university teaching differ with regard to age, sex, teaching/academic title, years of experience in academic institutions and scientific field the faculty belongs to. The results of this research show that the excellence of planning and preparation and excellence in choice of teaching methods are the most important elements of excellence in the organization of university teaching, and that 90% of teaching personnel evaluates that the classes they organize are at very high level of excellence.

Full text

517
Review paper
Accepted:7th December 2020
Nedim Čirić, PhD
IslamicPedagogicalFacultyofBihac,TheUniversityofBihac
BosniaandHerzegovina
nedim.ciric@ipf.unbi.ba
SELF-EVALUATION OF EXCELLENCE OF
DIDACTICAL-METHODICAL ORGANIZATION OF
UNIVERSITY TEACHING
Abstract: The total excellence of university teaching largely depends on peda-
gogical and didacticalmethodical competencies of university professors. The
development and promotion of academic teaching is enabled by the moderniza-
tion of the teaching process which does not encompass only modernization of
curriculum but the entire didacticalmethodical organization of teaching. Plea-
sure and requirements of students are to be accentuated accordingly, as well
as competencies of teachers and expectations of labor market. The purpose of
this paper is to establish which element of didacticalmethodical organization
of university teaching is the most important dimension of excellence of teach-
ing as well as in what way university professors perform selfevaluation of the
excellence of didacticalmethodical organization of teaching at the Universi-
ty of Tuzla. The analyticaldescriptive survey method was used as a variant
of analyticaldescriptive method as well as procedures of analysis of contents
and polling. It is supposed that there is statistically signicant dierence in
selfevaluation of the importance of elements of excellence in didacticalme-
thodical organization of teaching at the University of Tuzla and that selfeval-
uations of the importance of individual elements of excellence of university
teaching dier with regard to age, sex, teaching/academic title, years of expe-
rience in academic institutions and scientic eld the faculty belongs to. The
results of this research show that the excellence of planning and preparation
and excellence in choice of teaching methods are the most important elements
of excellence in the organization of university teaching, and that 90% of teach-
ing personnel evaluates that the classes they organize are at very high level of
excellence.
Keywords: excellence of university teaching, teaching methods, teaching forms,
teaching aids and technology
ČLANCI  PAPERS

518
INTRODUCTION
ModernizationofthereformprocessoftheacademiceducationinBosniaand
HerzegovinaformallybeganbysigningtheBologna Declaration and at the same
timethereweretendenciestojoinalluniversitiesinBosniaandHerzegovinawith
theuniqueareaforacademiceducationoftheEuropeanUnion.Atthesametime
thequestion ofexcellence ofacademic education aswell asacademic teaching
wasraisedandtheprocessofreformswaschanneledthroughinternalstructureand
externalstructureofexcellence.Takingintoconsiderationthefactthattheobject
ofourresearchisexcellenceofuniversityteaching,thefocusistheteachingpro-
cessanditsstructure.Accordingtodidacticlegalitiesandprinciples,anyteaching
regardlessofdierentiationandclassicationisbasedongoodinternalorganiza-
tionandwell-structuredteachingplansandprograms.Theexcellenceofinternal
organizationofuniversity teaching isdirectly relatedto expert competenciesof
teachersincertainareasfromonesideandpedagogicalandmethodicalcompeten-
ciesofholding,organizing,andmanagingclassesontheotherside.
Ensuring and developing the excellence of academic education as well as
highereducationteachingrequiresacontinuousmonitoring,analyses,andadjus-
tmentsofteachingprocesstocircumstancesinwhichteachingisconductedwith
constantinnovations of academicmethodology of teaching aswell as teaching
practice. Lučin (2007) understands evaluation as a process of critical reconsi-
derationand usualprocedure when it comes toEuropean highereducation and
institutionsthat possess theexcellence culture. Based onthe above mentioned,
LegčevićandHećimović(2016)considerthathighereducationinstitutionsshould
consistentlyapplyinternationalregulationsandstandardsthatarepredenedand
publishedfromtheaspectofexcellenceassessment.Evaluationofteachingpro-
cessisanimportantpartofprofessionalpracticeofeveryteacher.Thecomplete
processofevaluationofexcellenceinteachingatuniversityisconductedthrough
threepositionsofexcellenceevaluation.Therstpositionofevaluationisself-eva-
luationinwhichtheteacherperformsself-controlofteachingexcellencebasedon
self-criticalapproachtowardstheirownworkandbasedonsetandaccomplished
goalsand tasksin organizedtypeof classes.The secondposition ofevaluation
ofteaching process emergesfrom users ofservices of academiceducation, i.e.
studentsandbasedonexperiencesandbypersonalparticipationinsuchorganiza-
tionofteachingprocess.Thethirdpositionofevaluationofexcellenceofteaching
work,whichistheleastfrequentlyusedatacademicteachingpractice,isengaging
experteducatorassociateswhobydierentinventories,scalesandotherindicators
canindependentlyevaluate excellenceofteaching fromtheaspect ofdidactical
legalities,methodicalcompetenciesandthelike.
Inthisresearchtheprocedureofself-evaluationofexcellenceofteachingis
usedfromtheperspectiveofuniversityteachers.Theresearchobjectiveistoesta-
blishhowtheteachersevaluatetheimportanceofdierentelementsofexcellence
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

519
ofdidactical-methodicalorganizationofuniversityteachingaswellashowthey
evaluatetheexcellenceofteachers’owndidactical-methodicalorganizationofte-
achingatthefacultiesoftheUniversityofTuzla.Undertheexcellenceofdida-
ctical-methodicalorganization of teachingthe university teachers intheir work
evaluatedtheimportanceofthefollowingcomponents:methodsofplanningand
preparationofclasses,choosingappropriateteachingformsandteachingmethods,
choosingappropriateteachingtechnologiesandself-evaluatedthetotalexcellence
ofdidactical-methodical organization ofteaching. Tothis purpose,Likert’s1-5
pointscalewasused.
EVALUATION AND SELF-EVALUATION OF EXCELLENCE
OF UNIVERSITY TEACHING
Within reform tendencies based and initiated with the aim of creating the
“Europeanhighereducationarea”andincreasingcompetitivenessandinternatio-
nalcompetitivenessofEuropeanuniversities,thematterofexcellenceofuniversi-
tyteachingandoftheoverallsystemofhighereducationhasbecomethepriority
andtheessenceofthereformprocess.Therefore,theexcellenceofuniversityte-
achingissethighatthescaleofprioritiesintheareaofpromotionofsystemsof
academiceducation.Thequestionthatemergesis:whatistheexcellenceandhow
todenethe termof excellence?Thereare manydenitionsof “excellence”in
dictionariesandgenerallyaccepteddenitionaccordingtoJuranandGryn(1999,
p.3) is:“Theexcellence isthe pleasureof users.”Nikolić etal. (2011,p.183)
emphasizethatIvoševićetal.(2006)deneexcellenceasa“continuousprocess
thatensuresfulllmentofdesignatedstandards”.Standardsshouldensurethatany
academicinstitutionhas apotential toaccomplish highexcellence ofoutcomes
andresultsduringtheprocessofstudyingandteaching.Itreferstoassetsandpro-
cessesbywhichaninstitutionguaranteesthatstandardsandexcellenceinoered
educationismaintainedand promotedcontinually.Vlahović(2001) emphasizes
thatfortheexcellenceandreformaboveallprogrammodernizationisnecessary,
i.e.dierentcurriculumsbasedonwhich intellectualandothercompetenciesof
studentscanbedeveloped,developingrationalbutalso humanisticandcreative
approachestowardsscientic,technicalandartisticcontents,andpromotingini-
tiative and adaptability.
Academicteachingisaverycomplexeducationalprocesswhichhasitsow,
courseanddurationandfollowscertainrules.AccordingtoVilotijević(2001),a
successfulperformanceofteaching processcanbe doneonlyby thosewhoare
specialistsinallitsstructuralelementsandtheirmutualfunctionalrelationsand
connections.Whenitcomestoexcellenceinteaching,itrepresentsmultidimen-
sional, multilevel and dynamic concept that refers to contextual hypothesis of
educationalmodel,missionandgoalsofuniversity institutionandspecicstan-
dardsofthesystem,university,studyprogramandscienticarea.Theexcellence
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531

520
ofuniversityteachingcantakeondierentmeaningsandoneofthemaccording
toVanDamme(2003)isinterestofdierentparticipantsofthehighereducation
systeminwhichtherequirementforexcellenceisdictatedbyscienticarea,la-
bormarket,society,government,students,etc.Inrelationtotraditionalparadigm
ofhigher education in which the question of excellence of university teaching
wasnotprominent,contemporaryparadigmintegratedthroughBolognaconcept
ofhighereducationtransfersthequestionofexcellenceintoprioritysegmentsof
evaluationof higher education success. Related to this,Mencer (2010, p. 138)
emphasizesthatif highereducation isan importantfactor ofeconomic andso-
cialdevelopmentandbythatalsoanassumption ofsocialcohesionandjustice,
thanforhighereducationinterestedsidesarethefollowing:employers,students,
parents and public administration at all levels. Evaluation as a phenomenon and
pedagogicaltermhas alwaysdrawn attentionof expertsfrom thearea ofpeda-
gogy,psychology andsociology.Since evaluation(evaluation, assessment,gra-
ding)representsveryimportantactivityineducation,pedagogicalandmethodical
aspectsandactivitiespointtothedimensionofexcellenceandinthatsensegive
instructionsfornecessaryactionsthatleadtowardspromotionofexcellenceofte-
aching.Whenitcomestoevaluation,Simmons(2004,accordingtoPatoon,1987,
p.21)emphasizesthat excellence represents“systematicalcollectionof dataon
activities,characteristicsandoutcomesofprojectsinordertobringevaluationon
project,improveeciency andmakedecisions onfuture projects”. Lutfullayev
(2007)suggeststhat themostimportantfactor thataectschange inexcellence
inworkofacademicinstitutionisthecourageoftheirleaderstoidentifyshortco-
mingsandchangethemintopotentialsolutions.Predojević(2014)saysthatinsti-
tutionswhichhaveensuredinternalexcellencesuccessfullyperformevaluations,
programsmonitoring,vericationofqualicationsandskillsoftheiremployees,
establishcriteriaofevaluation,deneproceduresforevaluationofstudentsaswell
ascollectthedatausinginformationtechnologies.
Inthiscontext,thenecessityforanalysisandevaluationofexcellenceofuni-
versityteaching comesfrom responsibilityof theinstitution ofhigher education
butalsoteacherstowardsstudents,employees,students’parents,authorizedinsti-
tutions,employersatthelabormarketaswellascommunity.Omerović(2014,p.
112)emphasizesthatteachingcanbeevaluatedduringtheteachingprocess(forma-
tive evaluation)andattheendofthesemesterortheyear(summative evaluation).
Thereare severalprocedures of evaluationof teachingprocess such assurveys,
interviews,gamesforevaluations,monitoringandobservingofteachingprocess,
evaluationand assessment, group discussions, etc. The most frequenttechnique
inevaluationofteachersandteachingprocess(accordingtoLukasetal.,2014)is
evaluationbystudentsthathasvastusageasanindicatorofexcellenceofhigher
education.Studentevaluationofexcellenceofacademicteachingisperformedby
pollsurveyswhicharedesignedin amannerthatenablesstudentsa quantitative
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

521
evaluationofworkexcellenceofacademicteachers.Kuzmanovićetal.(2013)con-
siderevaluationbystudentsasprocedureorganizedwiththepurposeofimprove-
mentofteachingeciency,formulationofhumanresourcesdecisionsinthesense
ofpromotions,advancementtohigherteachingpositions,rewarding,etc.,aswellas
informationusedbystudentsforthepurposeofchoosingcertaincourses.
Evaluationofteachingrepresentsapartofprofessionalpracticeofanyuniver-
sityteacher.AccordingtoHounsell(2003)teachersevaluateteachingprocessin
ordertondouthowmuchtheyaresuccessfulintherealizationoftheirpersonal
professionalpractice,to revealtheir strongand weaksides andsee howsucce-
ssfulthey are in comparison to their teacher colleagues. Feedbackinformation
onteachingworkandexcellenceof teachingprocessispossibletocollect from
students,teacher colleagues or expert associates by evaluation or self-evaluati-
on.AccordingtoPoljak(1984),thepurposeofself-testingandself-evaluationof
teachersiscriticalanalysisandcontrollingofapplicationofmethodologyoftea-
chingforthe purposeofimprovement and promotionofexcellence ofteaching
process.Teachersandexpertassociatescanensurefeedbackinformationbytheir
observationof classes and cooperative commenting.Hounsell (2003) emphasi-
zesthatself-evaluationisfeasiblethroughreviewingofaudioorvideorecordings
fromclassesandobservingandmarkingchangesinteachingwhileteacherscollect
dataondailypracticebymonitoringandre-evaluationofteachingandtheiree-
cts.Implementingofevaluationwiththetaskofcompletionofformalrequestsis
extrinsicallymotivated.Collectionofdatathatareinitiatedbyteachersthemselves
isofawiderrangeandwithdeepintrinsicmotivation.
Self-evaluationofteachingprocessservesforitspromotionaswellasforeva-
luationof(in)appropriateproceduresintheorganizing,realizationandevaluation
oftheteachingprocess.Inthatmannerteachersself-evaluatetheirownmethodical
andpedagogicalcompetenciesandtheycanrealizeinwhichdirectiontheirown
pedagogical,psychological,didacticandmethodicalimprovementshouldbedire-
cted.Relatedtothis,Brownetal.(2003)emphasizethatagoodteacheristheone
whore-evaluatestheirownteachingpractice,promotestheirskillsandevaluates
teachingprocessaccordingtoitsinuenceonstudents.Itisimportanttomention
thatthereisalargenumberofvariousclassicationsofdimensionsofevaluati-
onof teaching process(according to researchesFeldman, 1988; Jacksonet al.,
1999;Johnston&Reid,1999,etc.)and,therefore,theroleofacademicteachers
asexperts,scientistsandpedagoguesisverycomplexandextremelydemanding.
Malčićetal.(2017,p.263)emphasizethatacademicteachersshouldcontinu-
allyadvancetheoreticalknowledgeanddidacticcompetenciesintheirownarea
(Maleševićetal.,2011),abilityoftransferringknowledgeandteachingcompeten-
cies(Kostović,2008);communicationskills,availabilityandempathynecessary
instudents’dilemmaswiththepurposeofdevelopingpositiverelationsthatwere
proventobecrucialinmotivationandsupportofstudents(Rubie-Davies,2007),
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531

522
aswellascompetenciesinevaluationthroughmonitoringandtimelyfeedbackon
theireectsinordertoachievenecessarylevelfortheexamtaking(OECD,2005).
Dimensionsofevaluationoftheexcellenceoftheteachingprocessatuniver-
sitiesaccordingtoLukasetal.(2014)areplanning(astheprocessofdesigning
thecurriculumcontent),interactionandcommunicationofacademicteachersand
students(applicationofappropriatemethodologicalstrategiesanddidacticalaids
oncertaincourses)with thepurposeof developingcompetenciesofstudents as
wellasmotivationofstudentsandenthusiasmofacademicteachersinachieving
theexpectedresults,andresults (learning outcomes),i.e.accomplishedformative
goals,levelofcompetenciesandpleasurewithclassesorganization.Malčićetal.
(2017,p. 262) state ve dimensions of the evaluation of the teaching process:
organizationofclasses,dicultiesthatacademicteachersencounter,expectations
andjustevaluation,andcareofacademicteachersforstudentsandtheknowledge
theywillacquire.
Concerningthat theproblem of thisresearch isevaluation of excellenceof
universityclassesthroughself-evaluationofteachingwork,itisnecessarytode-
neand separatecharacteristics ofteaching processthat representindicators or
predictorsofexcellenceofteachingwork.Outofthetotaltencriteriaofvalidityof
teachingemphasizedbyMeyer(2005),ourfocuswasonplanningandpreparation,
selectionofappropriateteachingformsandmethodologyofteachingworkaswell
aschoiceofadequateteachingaidsandteachingtechnology.
Theaimofthisresearchwastodeterminewhichfactorofdidactical-metho-
dicalorganizationofuniversityteachingisthemostimportantdimensionoftea-
chingexcellenceaccordingtotheattitudesofuniversityteachersaswellashow
universityteachersevaluatetheirownexcellenceof didactic-methodicalorgani-
zationofteachingattheUniversityofTuzla.Theresearchassumedthatthereisa
statisticallysignicantdierenceintheself-evaluationoftheimportanceoffactors
ofexcellenceofdidactic-methodicalorganizationofteachingattheUniversityof
Tuzlaandthattherearedierencesinself-evaluationoftheimportanceofindivi-
dualfactorsofexcellenceinuniversityteachingwithregardtoage,sex,teaching/
academictitle,yearsofworkexperienceinhighereducationinstitutionsandthe
eldofsciencetowhichthefacultybelongsbelongs.
METHODOLOGY
Inthesenseofmethodology,theresearchistransversalandanalytical-descrip-
tiveandsurveymethodswereusedasvariantsofanalytical-descriptivemethod.
Proceduresofcontentanalysesandinterviewingwereused.Theinstrumentsused
aretwosurveyquestionnaires.Questionnaire on sociodemographic characteri
stics of respondents–fordatathatrefertoallindependentvariablesofthisresearch
toincludeage,sex,teaching/academictitle,yearsofexperienceinhighereduca-
tioninstitutionsandtheeldofsciencetowhichthefacultybelongs.SENUNTZ
VI/913 – isthesurveyquestionnaireconstructedforthepurposeofthisresearch
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

523
thatconsistsofsixpartsdividedintonineparticlesinwhichrespondentspresent
self-evaluationonthescalesofvedegrees(Always, Frequently, Sometimes, Rarely
and Never) and (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory, NonSatisfactory).
TheresearchwasconductedattheUniversityofTuzlaintheacademicyear
2015/2016 at sessions of Scientic-Teaching Councils of the faculties of the
UniversityofTuzlaonwhich80%ofsampleswerecollected,while20%ofrespo-
ndentswerecontactedbyemail.Forprocessing,theSPSS21software(Statistical
Package of Social Sciences – for Windows)wasused.
Thepopulationofthisresearchiscomposedofallteachingstaandassociates
attheUniversityofTuzla.Thesamplewascomposedoftwentyteachersandasso-
ciatesselectedfromvegroupsofsciencesandarts(social,humanistic,natural,
bio-medicalandhealth,technical)consistingofthirteenfaculties,organizational
unitsoftheUniversityofTuzla.Thepopulationdiersinsex,age,yearsofexpe-
rienceinhighereducationteachingandacademic/teachingtitle.Thetotalnumber
ofrespondentsis101.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Planningandpreparationofteachingprocessondaily,weekly,monthlyand
annuallevel,usageofappropriateteachingmethodsandformsfortheimplemen-
tationofteachingcontent,usageofappropriateteachingassetsandtechnicalaids
andteachingtechnology,aswellasdidactical-methodicalelementsofexcellence
ofcontemporaryuniversityteachingshouldbeinaccordance withrequirements
ofstudentsandorientedtowardscontemporarytendenciesofdemocraticsociety
whichisintheprocessoflearning.
Tendencies toward excellence of teaching work are based on new metho-
dologicalconcepts inhigher education teaching in whichthe signicantrole is
dedicatedtopedagogicalanddidactical-methodicalguidelinesforactionworkin
theteaching practice. Oneof the tendenciesof contemporary paradigmof hig-
hereducationthatemergesfromtheprincipleofBologna Declaration(according
toDukić,2010)and Schultzetal. contemporarydidactictheories (accordingto
Gudjonsetal.,1994)ispartialreplacementofthefrontalformofindividualand
groupteachingworkwithstudents.PiršlandAmbrosi-Randić(2010)stressthat
ofthebasisofstudyingbeforeBolognaProcessconsistedofteachingandfrontal
workatthemajorityofhighereducationinstitutionsinRepublicofCroatia.
WhenitcomestoBosniaandHerzegovina,itisalmostidentical.Fromtheas-
pectofeducationalpolitics,itcouldbesaidthateventhoughthereisalargenum-
berofresearchesonimplementationandeectsofBolognaProcess,bothstudents
andteachersbeingdirectparticipantsinthechangesintheprocessofreform,from
theaspectofhighereducationpedagogyandhighereducationdidactics,thosere-
searchesaremodest,especiallywhenitcomestoexcellenceininternalorganizati-
onofteachingathighereducation.
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531

524
Analyzingthesampleofrespondentswithregardtosocio-demographicvaria-
bles,Hi-squaretestestablishedthatthereisnostatisticallysignicantdierence
χ2(df=4)=0.00,p>0.05. Considering groupsof sciences in which academic tea-
cherswerechosen thereisno statisticallysignicantdierence,there isnosta-
tisticallysignicantdierencewhensexofrespondentsistakenintoconsideration
eitherχ2(df=1)=0.00, p>0.05. Statisticallysignicant dierence wasestablished
regardingthework status,χ2(df=1)=38.44,p<0.05in whichsignicantlyhigher
numberofemployeesparticipated(80.2%)comparingassociates(19.8%).Itwas
establishedthatthereisstatisticallysignicantdierenceregardingscientictitle,
χ2(df=5)=69.80,p<0.05, i.e.thelargestnumberof respondents whoparticipated
comefromthegroupofassistantprofessors(37.6%),associateprofessors(33.7%),
thesame percentage of assistantsand senior assistants (11.9%),professors and
(4%)andemeritusprofessors(1%).Thereisastatisticallysignicantdierence
regardingage,χ2(df=4)=30.70,p<0.05,i.e.thelargestnumberofrespondentswere
between30and40yearsold,(34.7%),between40and50,(26.7%),between50
and60(22.8%),between20to30(13.9%)andover60(2%).Itwasalsoestabli-
shedthattherewasstatisticallysignicantdierenceregardingtheageofexpe-
rience in higher education institutions, χ2(df=3)=15.04, p<0.05, i.e. the highest
percentageofrespondents(40.6%)i.e.,thehighestpercentageofrespondentshas
workexperiencefrom9to15years,23.8%ofrespondentswithexperiencefrom
4to8years,(20.8%)ofrespondentswithexperienceover15years,and14.9%of
respondentswithexperiencefrom1to3years.
Consideringthatthepurposeoftheresearchwas toestablishwhatfactorof
didactical-methodical organization of academic teaching is the most important
dimension of teaching excellence and how higher education teachers evaluate
excellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganizationofteachingattheUniversityof
Tuzla,thefollowingresultswereestablished:
Table 1 Self-evaluationoftheimportanceofmethodicalexcellenceelementsof
teachingwork(%)
Self-evaluationaspects
Relevanceofexcellenceelements
Always
Frequently
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Planningandpreparationofteachingwork 50 30 8 4 8
Choiceofteachingworkmethods 29 41 23 3 4
Choiceofteachingworkforms 11 20 27 20 22
Choiceofteachingassetsandtechnicalaids 7 13 37 30 13
Choiceofteachingtechnology 6 9 31 23 31
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

525
FromtheresultsshowninTable 1, it could be concluded that the most domi-
nantelementofexcellenceisplanningandpreparationofteachingworkisaccor-
dingtostatementsofteachingsta.Asmuchas80%ofrespondentsstatethatthe
excellenceof planning andpreparation of teachingwork is the mostimportant
elementforachievinghighexcellenceofteachingprocess.Ontheotherhand,70%
ofrespondentsstatethatitisthechoiceofmethodsofteachingworkthatis the
mostimportantfactorinachievinghighexcellenceintheteachingprocess,31%of
respondentsstatethatthemostimportantelementofexcellenceofteachingwork
isexcellence ofchoice ofteaching methods,20% statethat itis theexcellence
ofchoiceof teachingassets andtechnical aids,while 15%of respondentsstate
thatfortheexcellenceofteachingthemostimportantaspectischoiceofteaching
technology.
Furthermore,duringresearchitwasapriority toestablishwhetherplanning
andpreparation ofteaching is statisticallysignicantly morefrequently evalua-
tedasthemostimportantelementofexcellenceofteachingincomparisontoot-
hers.WeusedWilcox’stestbasedonresults oftestof normalityofdistribution
(Kolmogorov-SmirnovTest)whichshowsasymmetryofdistributionofallstated
scales.TheresultsofstatedanalysisareshownintheTable 2below.
Table 2 Wilcox’sTestresultsonfrequencyofusageoffrontalformofwork
Zdf p
Planningandpreparation–Choiceofteachingworkmethods -1.966 99 .049
Planningandpreparation–Choiceofteachingworkforms -6.200 99 .000
Planningandpreparation–Choiceofteachingassetsandtechnicalaids -6.424 99 .000
Planningandpreparation–Choiceofteachingtechnology -7.420 99 .000
Theresults shownin Table 2indicate thatthere is astatistically signicant
dierenceintheaverageevaluationofexcellenceelementsofplanningandpre-
parationforclasseswhencomparedtothechoiceofteachingmethodsZ(df=99)=
-1.966,p<0.05,wheretheexcellenceofplanningandpreparationisoflowerave-
rageresult,i.e.ofhigherchoice andstrategiesofteachingstawhen compared
toteachingmethods.Thereisastatisticallysignicantdierencein theaverage
evaluationofelementsofplanningandpreparationofclassescomparedtothecho-
iceofteachingmethods,Z(df=99)= -6.200,p<0.05,whereexcellenceofplanning
andpreparationisofloweraverageresult,i.e.ofhigherchoiceandstrategiesof
teachingstacomparedtothemethodsofteachingwork.Besidesthat,itwasesta-
blishedthatthereisastatisticallysignicantdierencein averageevaluationof
elementsofplanningandpreparationofclasseswhencomparedtothechoiceof
formsofteachingwork,Z(df=99)= -6.424,p<0.05,whereexcellenceofplanning
andpreparationisofloweraverageresult,i.e.ishigherchoiceand strategiesof
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531

526
teachingpersonnelcomparedtotheformofteachingwork.Itwasestablishedthat
thereisastatisticalsignicantdierenceintheaverageevaluationofelementsof
excellenceofplanningandpreparationofclasseswhencomparedwithchoiceof
teachingtechnology,Z(df=99)= -7.420,p<0.05,whereexcellenceofplanningand
preparationisofloweraverageresult,i.e.ofhigherchoiceandstrategiesoftea-
chingpersonnelcomparedtoexcellenceofchoiceofteachingaidsandtechnology.
Thediscriminative analysis wasused in order toestablish whether there is
statisticallysignicantdierenceinself-evaluationoftheimportanceofexcellen-
ceofplanningandpreparationofteachingworkconsideringsocio-demographic
variables:ageofacademicteachersandassistants,sex,academic/teachingtitles,
yearsofexperienceinhighereducationinstitutionsandgroupsofsciencestowhi-
chtheappropriatefacultybelongsto.
Table 3 Discriminative analysis results
Fλ%variables Cumulative%
ofvariables rcWilkinson’sλ χ2df p
1 0.113 67.7 67.7 0.319 0.852 15.099 20 .771
2 0.035 21.1 88.8 0.185 0.948 5.013 12 .958
3 0.014 8.2 97.0 0.117 0.982 1.749 6 .941
4 0.005 3.0 100.0 0.070 0.995 .464 2 .793
Resultsofdiscriminativeanalysisshowthatthereisnostatisticallysignicant
dierenceinself-evaluationoftheimportanceofexcellenceofplanningandpre-
parationofteachingworkintermsofsocio-demographicvariables.Therearefour
discriminativefunctions,Wilkinson’sλattherstdiscriminativefunctionishigh
(Wilkinson’sλ1=0.852)showingthatvariablesdonotcontributetomoresigni-
cantamountofpredictionindieringofgroups,i.e.thatthestrengthofdiscrimi-
nativefunctionsissmall.Fromthisindicatorwecanseethat85.2%ofvarianceis
notdened.χ2 testisnotsignicantforthefunction1,χ2=15.099,p>0.05which
wasshownforotherfunctionsaswell,whichprovesthatdiscriminativemodelis
notsignicantandthatvariablesarenotcertainpredictorsofassociationwiththe
groupbasedonevaluationoftheimportanceofexcellenceofplanningandprepa-
rationofteachingwork.
Table 4 Self-evaluationoftotalexcellenceofteachingworkonscale1–5(f,%)
Excellenceself-evaluation
1.Excellent 2.Verygood 3. Good 4.Satisfactory 5.Non-Satisfactory
f75 15 9 1 1
%74.2 14.9 8.9 0.99 0.99
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

527
FromtheresultsshowninTable 4itcouldbeconcludedthat74.2%ofteaching
personnelevaluatesthetotalexcellenceofuniversityteachingasexcellent,14.9%
evaluatesitasverygood,8.9%ofteachingpersonnelevaluatesitasgoodand1%
ofteaching personnel evaluates it assatisfactory and non-satisfactory for both.
Thereisnostatisticallysignicantdierenceinself-evaluationoftotalexcellence
ofuniversityteachinginrelationtosocio-demographicvariablesofrespondents.
AccordingtoFrankovićetal.(1963)planninginteachingmeanspremeditated
projectingoftheentireteachingwork.Thepurposeandgoalofplanningoftea-
chingistoapproachteachingworkinacreativeandorganizedmanner.According
toKiryacou(1994)thefourmostimportantelementsofplanningandpreparation
ofclasses encompassdecision on pedagogicalgoals, choice andwritten prepa-
rationofteachingunit,preparationofteaching assetsandaids,decisionsonthe
methodof monitoring andevaluation ofprogress. By testingself-evaluation of
universityteachingpersonnel,inrelationtothisaspect,theresultsofresearchpoint
outthat80%ofrespondentstatethattheexcellenceofplanningandpreparation
ofteachingworkisthemostimportantelementforachievinghighexcellenceof
teachingprocess.
Whenitcomestoteachingmethods,itisknownthatthereisnouniversaltea-
chingmethodbuttheirapplicationdependsexclusivelyonrealityofpedagogical
situationinteachingprocesses.Jelavić(1998,p.43)denesteachingmethodsasa
didacticallyplannedandoptimallyorganizedsystemofactivitiesofteachingand
studyingwiththeprimarygoalofachievingcertainskills,developcertainabilities
andotherrelevantcharacteristicsofpersonality.Bytestingtheself-evaluationof
universityteachingpersonnelinrelationtothisaspect,theresultsofresearchpoint
outthat70%ofrespondentsstatethattheexcellenceofchoiceofmethodsoftea-
chingworkisanelementforachievinghighexcellenceofteachingprocess.
Educationprocess andpedagogical situationat universityteaching arecha-
racterizedbydierentsocialrelationsbetweenstudentsandteachersaswell,and
theyaremanifestedindierentshapesandforms.AccordingtoVilotijević(2001),
formsofteachingworkbysocialcriteriaarefrontal,groupwork,pairwork,indivi-
dualandindividualizing.Theresultsoftheresearchshowthat31%ofrespondents
statethattheexcellenceofchoiceoftypeofteachingworkisthemostimportant
elementinthe totalexcellence ofteaching process bytesting self-evaluationof
universityteachingpersonnelinrelationtothisaspect.
Thematerialtechnical basisofteaching representsdimensionof excellence
anditencompassesa widerangeofteaching assets andgoalswithemphasis to
pedagogicaldidacticfunctionsandrolesdeterminedbybasicgoalsandteaching
tasks.BrankovićandIlić (2003)considermaterial-technicalbasis ofclassesthe
contemporaryandfunctionalteachingobjects,technicaldevicesandteachingaids,
teachingassetsanddidacticmaterial. OsmićandTomić(2008,p. 77)denete-
chnicalorteachingaidsas“toolsforworkwithteachingassetsorworkoverall”.
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531

528
Technicalaidsaredevices,instrumentsandsimilartoolswhichhelpinusingtea-
chingassets.Teachingassetsaresourcesofknowledgeandteachingaidsactivate
thesources ofknowledge in orderto beaccessible tosenses of theones being
taught.Theresultsofresearchpointoutthat20%respondentsstatethatexcellence
ofchoice of teachingassets and technicalaids is themost element intotal ex-
cellenceofteachingprocessbytestingtheself-evaluationofuniversitypersonnel
in relation to this aspect.
When it comes to didactic media and teaching technology, the contempo-
rarydidactictheoristWolfgangShulz(accordingtoGudjonsetal.,1994)denes
themasconcretemediators inunderstandingtheteaching actions.Accordingto
Shulz’stheoryofteaching,themediaareappropriateindierentwaysforsepara-
teteachingmethods.Mediaareauxiliaryaidsforteachingcommunication;they
substitutefortheteacherasalecturer,coach,examiner,etc.(likeeducationalTV
shows,computersoftwareandprogramfor testingetc.),whichmeansthatsuch
classesadoptnewexcellence.Thecontemporarydidacticliteraturefrequentlyin-
troducesthetermdidacticquadrilateralinwhicheducationaltechnologytakesthe
placeof a factorof sustainabilityof teaching.By testingself-evaluation oftea-
chingpersonnelinrelationtothis aspect,theresultsofresearchshow that15%
ofrespondentsstatethattheexcellenceofchoicesofteachingtechnologyisthe
mostimportant elementfor achievinghigh excellenceof teachingprocess.The
resultsofanalysisofWilcoxon’stestbasedonresultsoftestofnormalityofdis-
tribution(Kolmogorov-Smirnovtest)thatshowsasymmetryofdistributionofall
statedscales,indicatethatthereisstatisticallysignicantdierencebetweenthe
evaluationsoftheimportanceofelementsofexcellenceofplanningandallother
elementsofexcellenceofrespondentsinthisresearch.Theresultsofdiscriminati-
veanalysisshowthatthereisnostatisticallysignicantdierenceinaccentuating
theelementsofexcellenceofplanningandpreparingofteachingworkinrelation
tosocio-demographicvariablesofrespondents.
Whenit comes tothe total excellenceof university teaching,the results of
self-evaluationof teaching personnel show that 74.2% of respondents evaluate
thetotalexcellenceoftheteachingasexcellent,14.9%evaluateitasverygood.
Theseresultspointoutthefactthatself-evaluationoftotalexcellenceofteaching
doesnotincludeself-criticismandthequestionthatarisesis:basedonwhatthe
excellenceofuniversityteachingistestedifeven90%ofteachingpersonnelthink
thatcoursestheyorganizeareatthehighlevelofexcellence.
CONCLUSION
Thevalues of results obtained arenumerous from the aspect of measuring
the excellence of university teaching by self-evaluation of teaching personnel.
Throughself-evaluationtheelementsofexcellencethatrefertoplanning,prepa-
ration,choiceofteachingmethods,formsofteachingwork,teachingassetsand
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

529
technicalaidsaswellasteachingtechnologywereevaluated.Westartedfromthe
assumptionthatthereisstatisticallysignicantdierenceinself-evaluationofthe
importanceofexcellenceofdidactic-methodicalorganizationofteachingworkof
teachersoftheUniversityofTuzlaandthatinself-evaluationoftheimportance
ofindividualelementsofexcellence ofuniversityteachingthereare dierences
regardingage,sex,academic/teachingtitle,yearsofexperienceinhighereducati-
oninstitutionsandtheeldofsciencestowhichtheappropriatefacultybelongs.
Theresultsofself-evaluationofexcellenceofteachingstaattheUniversityof
Tuzlashowthattheexcellenceofplanningandpreparationandtheexcellenceof
choiceofteachingmethodsarethemostimportantelementsofexcellence.When
itcomestotestedelementsofexcellencebyself-evaluationofteachingpersonnel,
nostatisticallysignicantdierencewasfoundrelatedtosocio-demographicva-
riablesofrespondents.Basedonresultsofself-evaluation,itcouldbeconcluded
thatteachingpersonnelattheUniversityofTuzlaevaluatetheirownorganization
ofteachingworkexcellent.Itisassumed,inthelightofevaluationofexcellence
ofacademicteaching,thatfutureresearchesshouldincludewideraspectofdida-
ctical-methodicalelementsofexcellence of academicteachingsuch as teaching
styles,communicationandinteractioninclasses,teachingsystems,methods,te-
chniquesandtypesofevaluationofachievementsofstudents,etc.andthatthese
shouldberesearchedthroughevaluationofexcellencefromthepointofviewand
roleofstudents inacademic courses.Besides theabovementioned itwould be
signicanttoresearchhowuniversityteachersevaluateindividualcourseecien-
cyofteachingthroughmethodical-didacticaldeterminationofuniversitycourses,
thelevelofengagementofstudentsinthoseprocessesaswellasout-of-instituti-
on relations and activities in practical academic courses (companies, institutions,
NGOs,etc.)thatareusuallymarginalizedinresearchessuchasthisone.
REFERENCES
1. Branković,D., &Ilić, M.(2003). Osnovi pedagogije. Filozofski fakultet in Banja
Luka.
2. Brown,M.,Fry,H.,&Marshall,S.(2003).ReectivePractice.InH.Fry,S.Ketteridge
&S.Marshall(Eds.),A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (pp.
215–225).KoganPage.
3. Đukić, M. (2010). Nova paradigma univerzitetske nastave kao izraz pedagoške
reformevisokogobrazovanja. Sociološka luča, 4(1), 135–145.
4. Feldman,K.A.(1988).Eectivecollegeteachingfromthestudentsandfacultyviews:
matched or mismatched priorities? Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 291–329.
5. Franković,D.,Pregrad,Z.,&Šimleša,P.(1963).Enciklopedijski rječnik pedagogije.
MaticaHrvatska.
6. Gudjons,H.,Teske,R.,&Winkel,R.(1994).Didaktičke teorije. Educa.
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531

530
7. Hounsell, D. (2003). The evaluation of teaching. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge & S.
Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching & learning in higher education (pp. 200–
212).Koganpage.
8. Ivošević,V.,Mondekar,D.,Geven,K.,&Bols,A.(2006). Vodič kroz osiguranje kva-
litete u visokom školstvu. Priručnik za profesore i studente.Agramnaklada.
9. Jackson,D.L.,Teal,C. R., Raines,S.J.,& Nansel, T.R.(1999).Thedimensions
ofstudents’perceptions ofteaching eectiveness. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 59(4), 580–596.
10. Johnston, M., & Reid, D. J. (1999). Improving teaching in higher education.
Educational Studies, 25(3), 269–281.
11. Jelavić,F.(1998).Didaktika.NakladaSlap.
12. Juran,J.M.,&Gryna,F.M.(1999).Planiranje i analiza kvalitete. Matte.
13. Kiryacou, C. (l994). Temeljna nastavna umijeća. Educa.
14. Kostović,S.(2008).Pigmalion u razredu.Filozofskifakultet.
15. Kuzmanović,M.,Savić,G.,Gušavac,B.A.,Makajić-Nikolić,D.,&Panić,B.(2013).
AConjoint-basedapproachtostudentevaluationsofteachingperformance.Expert
Systems with Applications, 40(10), 4083–4089.
16. Legčević,J.,&Hećimović,V.(2016).Internalqualityassuranceatahighereducation
institution. Poslovna izvrsnost Zagreb, 10(2), 75–87.
17. Lučin,P.(2007).Kvaliteta u visokom obrazovanju.Nacionalnazakladazaznanost,
visokoškolstvoitehnologijskirazvojRepublikeHrvatske.
18. Lukas,J. F.,Santiago,K., Etxeberria, J., & Lizasoain, L. (2014).Adapting tothe
EuropeanHigher EducationArea aquestionnaire on student opinion aboutthe te-
achingof lecturers. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa,
20(1),art.3.DOI:10.7203/relieve.20.1.3812.
19. Lutfullayev,P.(2007).ResearchonBenchmarkinginhighereducation:Anoverview.
In Quality driven initiatives: sharing good practices in higher education. Proceedings
of the Regional conference on quality in higher education, Faculty of Education (pp.
1–16).HiltonPetalingJaya.
20. Malčić,B.,Tančić,N.,&Kostović,S.(2017).Dimenzijeulogenastavnikauvisokoš-
kolskojnastaviizperspektive studenata. Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom
Sadu, 42(2),259–273.https://doi.org/10.19090/g.2017.2.259-273
21. Malešević,D.,Adamović,Z.,&Đurić,Z.(2011).Theinuenceofcompetencesof
ateacheronthequalityofprofessionaleducation.Technics Technologies Education
Management – TTEM, 6(4), 1100–1109.
22. Marsh,H.W.(2007). Students’evaluationsofuniversityteaching:Dimensionality,
reliability,validity,potentialbiasesandusefulness.InR.P.Perry&J.C.Smart(Eds.),
The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidencebased er-
spective(pp.319–384).Springer.
23. Mencer,I.(2010).Upravljanjekvalitetomnahrvatskimsveučilištimaunastojanjima
uključivanjaueuropskiprostorvisokogobrazovanja.InM.Drljača(Ed.),Kvaliteta,
konkurentnost i održivost (pp. 133–149). INTER-ING.
24. Meyer,H.(2005).Štojedobranastava.Erudita.
25. Nikolić,G.,Zorić,D.,&Saškin,B.(2011).Osiguranjekvalitetestudijakaoproces
stvaranjaprepoznatljivekonkurentnosti.InM.Plenković(Ed.),Book of Manuscripts:
N.Čirić,Self-evaluationofexcellenceofdidactical-methodicalorganization...

531
Society and Technology 2011 / Društvo i tehnologija 2011(pp.183–192).Hrvatsko
komunikološkodruštvoiNonacom.
26. OECD(2005).Teachersmatter:Attracting, developing and retaining eective teac-
hers. OECD.
27. Omerović,M.(2014).Vrednovanje pedagoškog rada u školi – susret s metodičkom
praksom.OSet.
28. Osmić,I.,&Tomić,R.(2008).Didaktika.Selimpex.
29. Piršl,E.,&Ambrosi,R.N.(2010)Pratilireformaučenjareformuvisokogobrazova-
nja. Informatologija, 43(3), 212–218.
30. Poljak,V.(1984).Didaktika.Školskaknjiga.
31. Predojević, Z. (2014). Osiguranje kvalitete u visokom obrazovanju u Republici
Hrvatskoj.PomorskiFakultet.
32. Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom  interactions: Exploring the Practices of
Highand Low-Expectation Teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
77(2),289–306.DOI: 10.1348/000709906X101601.
33. Simmons,B.(2004).Designing Evaluation for Education Projects. Environmental
Education.IllinoisUniversity,DepartmentofTeachingandLearning.
34. VanDamme,D.(2002).“OutlooksfortheInternationalHigherEducationCommunity
inConstructingtheGlobalKnowledgeSociety.”PaperpresentedattheFirstGlobal
Forum on International Quality Assurance,Accreditation and the Recognition of
Qualications in Higher Education, United Nations Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization. Paris, France, October 17–18 http://www.aic.lv/bolona/
Bologna/Bol_semin/Oth_conf/UNESCO_GF1/gf7_vandamme_document.pdf
35. Vilotijević,M.(2001).Didaktika III.BHMOST.
36. Vlahović,B.(2001).Putevi inovacija u obrazovanju.StručnaknjigaiEduca.
Šk.vjesnik69(2020.),2,517–531