Strengthening the Partnership between the University and Graduates: Realities and Challenges
Abstract
The degree of graduates’ employability in the labour market is one of the main criteria, according to which shall be evaluated and assessed a university. It is basically a criterion as important as local or international accreditation agency. Unfortunately, higher education in Moldova has no tradition and practice of development the relations between the graduate and the university after his departure from academic medium, tradition very well developed in other states. It is important to know the career development of graduates through the active involvement of the university in this process. The State University of Physical Education and Sport operates a system of mechanisms that monitor the careers of its graduates. The analysis of the results of this action reflects several important issues for the University, such as: the level of employability of its graduates; the market need for qualified specialists in the fields of training of the University; identify problems in the study programs of the University; satisfaction degree of former university students on the quality of education; teachers who provide quality implementation of the program; utility program for employment and career development etc. The success of this exercise depend on the degree of motivation and conviction of young people to get involved in the life of the graduated University and help to improve its activity. At the same time, the University wants to get the graduates involved, to come up with suggestions, with an objective assessment of the realities where they had studied, without fear of any consequences and propose ideas for continuous improvement of studies. Thus, by maintaining a working relationship with the University and even after studies, the graduate becomes an active partner in ensuring the quality of education at the University.
References
[2] ***. Australian Institute For Teaching And School Leadership. National Professional Standards for Teachers. 2011.
[3] Chráska M. Metody pedagogického výzkumu: základy kvantitativního výzkumu. Praha: Grada Publishing. 2007. p. 265
[4] Colburn A. An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope. 2000. 23(6). pp. 42– 44
[5] ***. Commission on teacher credentialing. California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) [online]. 2009
[6] Day Ch. Efektivní učitelé a jejich vášnivé zaujetí kvalitou. Orbis scholae. 2012. (6)3. pp. 9−26.
[7] Dostál J. Badatelsky orientovaná výuka a kompetence učitele k její realizaci. JTIE. 2015. 7(1):7-34 DOI 10.5507/jtie.2015.001
[8] Dostál J. Badatelsky orientovaná výuka : pojetí, podstata, význam a přínosy. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého. 2015. p. 151
[9] Duncan R. G., Pilitsis V, & Piegaro M. Development of Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Critique and Adapt Inquiry-based Instructional Materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2010. (21)1, pp. 1–14
[10] ***. Důvody nezájmu žáků o přírodovědné a technické obory [online] Výzkumná zpráva. MŠMT. 2008.
[11] Eick Ch. J., & Stewart B. Dispositions Supporting Elementary Interns in the Teaching of Reform-Based Science Materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2010. (21)7. pp. 783–800
[12] European commission. Supporting teacher competence development for better learning outcomes. 2013. p. 59
[13] Fazio X., Melville W, & Bartley A. The Problematic Nature of the Practicum: a Key Determinant of Pre-service Teachers’ Emerging Inquiry-Based Science Practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2010. 21(6). 665–681
[14] Forbes C. T., & Davis E. A. Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010. (47)7. pp. 820–839
[15] Gonzalez T. A. The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 1984. (15)2. pp. 105–127
[16] Kim M, & Tan A. Rethinking difficulties of teaching inquiry-based practical work: stories from elementary pre-service teachers. International Journal of Science Education. 2011. (33)2. pp. 465–486
[17] Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., & Clark, R. E. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist. 2006. (41)2. pp.75–86
[18] Klieme E., Maag-Merki K, & Hartig J. Kompetence a jejich význam ve vzdělávání. Pedagogická orientace. 2010. (20)1. pp. 104–119
[19] Lee O, Hart J. E., Cuevas P, & Enders C. Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004. (41)10. pp. 1021–1043
[20] Maňák J. K problému teorie a praxe v pedagogice. Pedagogická orientace. 2011. (21)3. pp. 257–271
[21] ***. National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2000
[22] ***. Organisation for economic co-operation and development. Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies: Policy Report [online]. 2006
[23] Paaso A., & Korento K. The Competent Teacher 2010–2020: The competences of teaching staff in upper secondary vocational education and training [online]. 2010
[24] Pelikán J. Základy empirického výzkumu pedagogických jevů. Praga: Karolinum; 2004. p. 270
[25] Prawat R.S. Problematizing Dewey’s Views on Problem Solving: A Reply to Hiebert et al. Educational Researcher. 1977. (26)2. pp. 19–21
[26] Riga F., Winterbottom M., Harris E., & Newby L. Inquiry-Based Science Education. In: New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 2011. p. 247-261
[27] Rikmanis I., Logins J., & Namsone D. Teacher Views on Inquiry-based Science Education. In: Inquiry-based science education in Europe: reflections from the PROFILES project : book of invited presenters. Berlin: Freie Universität. 2012. pp. 14 – 16
[28] ***. Science Education in Europe: National Practices, Policies and Research, Brussels: European Commission. 2011. p. 166
[29] Tali 2013. Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, 2014. OECD
[30] Tomková A. Rozvoj klíčových kompetencí a pojetí výuky. Kritické listy. 2005 (20). pp. 5-8
[31] Vermeersch J. Začněme s ODL. Apeldoorn: Garant. 2005. p. 128
Copyright (c) 2018 LUMEN Proceedings
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© LUMEN Proceedings Series 2022 . The LUMEN Proceedings Open Access volumes are distributed under the terms of the 