Gryaznova, E. V.,Krasnov, A. E. Theoretical Bases of Rating Scale Evaluation of the Quality of Teaching at Higher School

Abstract: The subject under research of the present article is the rating scale system of evaluation of the quality of teaching at higher school. The authors focus on the problems which rise when implementing the foresaid evaluation system at Russian high schools not only at the qualitative but also at the quantitative levels. The importance of the research is dictated by the fact that in the age of information society it appears difficult to realize the high level of dynamic performance, availability, variability, differentiability and control over the educational process especially at the Bachelor’s level. Education process is viewed as a complex dynamic developing system. Research methodology is based on the rating method of evaluating the quality of functioning of complex systems including the quality of knowledge in the system of education. The author analyzes the two methods for evaluating the degree of complexity of didactic and expert modules — the method of heuristic judgments and the method of coordinated judgments. Rating evaluation method allows to reduce evaluation errors by rating the quality of education according to the many-point rating scale. The following rules for converting rating points to scoring points are applied by the authors when using a 5-point and 100-point evaluation scales with the level of error probability being equal to 0.0025 (no more than one error per four hundred cases): 2-point rating correspond to 48 scoring points and less, 3-point rating falls within the range from 52 to 68 scoring points, 4-point rating falls within the range from 72 to 88 scoring points and 5-piont rating lies in the range from 92 to 100 scoring points. There are no valid evaluations of the quality of the functioning of the system (for example, the system of education) in the ranges from 48 to 52, from 68 to 72 and from 88 to 92 with the level of error probability of 0.0025. According to the authors, when the rating falls within these ranges, it is necessary either to arrange for additional evaluation, for example, re-examination when a student wants to get a better grade or make a decision either to a student’s or a teacher’s benefit. Probability of evaluation error has the limits that are created by the justified choice of degrees of complexity of expert modules. These degrees of complexity, in their turn, depend on the degree of complexity of related system (or didactic, in case of education) modules.

Keywords: