THE CASE OF THE MUSIC EDUCATION PROGRAMME AT THE UNIVERSITY

José Luis ARÓSTEGUI

Granados universitetas • University of Granada

ÁVERTINIMO PRIEÐTARAVIMØ ATSKLEIDIMAS:

MUZIKOS MOKYTOJO RENGIMO PROGRAMOS GRANADOS UNIVERSITETE ATVEJIS

UNCOVERING CONTRADICTIONS IN EVALUATION:

THE CASE OF THE MUSIC EDUCATION PROGRAMME AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF GRANADA

SANTRAUKA

Straipsnyje pateikiamas muzikos mokytojo rengimo progra- mos Granados universitete ávertinimas. Pirmoje dalyje apta- riamos europinë, nacionalinë ir universitetinë ávertinimo sis- temos, kuriø pagrindu buvo atliktas ávertinimas. Ávertinimo procesas apima keturiø etapø duomenø rinkimo, interpreta- cijø këlimo, iðorinio ávertinimo ir galutinës ataskaitos rengi- mas atitinka svarbiausius ðios ávertinimo sistemos rezulta- tus.

Antroje dalyje aptariami svarbiausi surinkti duomenys, siûlo- mos jø interpretacijos ir rekomendacijos ávairiems universite- to padaliniams bei bendruomenëms siekiant pagerinti studi- jø programos kokybæ. Trys ávertinimui pateiktos sritys – tai dëstymas, tyrimai bei áranga ir teikiamos paslaugos.

Paskutinëje dalyje pristatomi asmenine patirtimi paremti ap- màstymai apie kokybæ ir dalyvavimà ávertinimo procese. Tiks- las, kurio siekta ávertinimu buvo labiau orientuotas á rezulta- tyvumà (efficiency), nei á kokybæ. Nors studentø, akademi- nio personalo ir kitø darbuotojø dalyvavimas ávertinime ne- buvo aktyvus, galima daryti iðvadà, kad jis paskatino juos ásitraukti á bendrà veiklà.

PAGRINDINIØ SÀVOKØ APIBRËÞIMAI

• Rezultatyvumas – produktai ir rezultatai, kuriuos daþniau- siai galima iðmatuoti ir kurie siekiami ir pasiekiami apgalvotai bet kokiomis priemonëmis.

• Kokybë – kolektyvinë ir asmeninë kokybë iðplaukia ið kom- forto, ið pasitenkinimo, ið laimës. Kokybë susiformuoja ne kaip kokio nors objekto savybës, bet ið santykio su tuo objektu.

Kad ir koks sudëtingas bûtø kokybës charakterizavimas, jos esmë glûdi patirtyje (R. Stake, 2001).

• Dalyvavimas – dalijimasis veikla ar veikimas kartu su kitais, identifikuojant save su kolegomis – grupës ar bendruome- nës nariais.

• Objektyvus – prieðingas subjektyviam, bet kokia problema, iðskirta ið bendro konteksto ir tikëtina esanti neutrali ir uni- versali.

ABSTRACT

This paper reports the evaluation carried out on the Music Teacher Education programme at the University of Granada.

The first section deals with the European, national and university framework in which that evaluation was done. The four-stage methodology for collecting data, raising interpretations, external evaluation, and final report preparation corresponds to the main consequence of that framework.

In the second part I discuss the main data collected, inter- pretations suggested, and recommendations raised to different university establishments and communities in order to improve the quality of this syllabus. The three purviews evaluated were teaching, research, and facilities and services provided.

In the final section I present my reflections about quality and participation in evaluation that this experience suggests to me. Efficiency rather than quality is the aim pursued. Despite the low participation that students, faculties and staff members have had in this evaluation, I conclude that evaluation promoted actors’ involvement.

DEFINITIONS KEY WORDS

• Efficiency: products and results, usually measurable, pursued intentionally and obtained by no matter what means.

• Quality: “collectivelly and personally, quality comes out of comfort, out of contentment, out of happiness. Quality emer- ges not as a property of some object but out of experience with that object. No matter how complex the characterisa- tion of quality, its origins are rooted in experience.” (Stake, 2001).

• Participation: the act of sharing or acting with others when there is identification with other peer-members which conforms a group or community.

• Objective: (as opposed to subjective) any issue when it is considered independently of its context, thus believed as neutral and universal.

ÁVADAS

Ðiuo metu ávertinimas tampa aktualia problema Europos Sàjungos valstybiniuose universitetuose. Maastrichto su- tarties, numatanèios sienø tarp ðaliø panaikinimà ávairiais aspektais, ágyvendinimas ir privaèiø universitetø skaièiaus augimas skatina ávertinimo procedûrø ágyvendinimà. Ðia- me straipsnyje aptarsiu ðias átakas muzikos mokytojo ren- gimo programos ávertinimo procesui. Ðá programos áverti- nimà inicijavo Ispanijos universitetø taryba bei pats Grana- dos universitetas. Aptarsiu kai kurias ávertinimo proceso charakteristikas, pagrindinius surinktus tyrimø duomenis, pasiûlymus studijø programø kokybei gerinti ir pateiksime savo refleksijas apie ávertinimo kokybæ ir dalyvavimà áverti- nimo procese.

Ávertinimo procesas bus aptartas pasitelkiant naujus aukðtojo mokslo ávertinimo þemyninëje Europoje standar- tus ir iðkeliant dvi kritines ðiuolaikinio institucinio ávertinimo problemas: (1) skatinimas dalyvauti bei dalyviø pasiprieði- nimas ir (2) oficialiai palaikoma kokybës sàvoka, kur labiau akcentuojamas rezultatyvumas, o ne kokybë. Granados uni- versiteto muzikos mokytojo rengimo programos ávertinimo apraðymas bus panaudotas kaip kultûrinis kontekstas ban- dant iðnagrinëti skirtingø dalyvavimo bei kokybës prasmiø, kurias áþvelgia dalyviai ir suinteresuoti asmenys, prieð- taravimus.

1 OFICIALÛS METMENYS IR METODIKA

Aukðtojo mokslo ávertinimas Ispanijoje yra aktualus klausi- mas, darantis átakà keturiø lygmenø institucijoms: Europi- nio, nacionalinio, regioninio ir universitetinio. Universitetø taryba – nacionalinë institucija, kurià sudaro visø Ispanijos universitetø rektoriai, – pademonstravo pirmàstas pastan- gas 1992 m. 1995 m. buvo vykdomas europinis þvalgoma- sis tyrimas siekiant ávertinti aukðtojo mokslo kokybæ. Tyri- mas „pademonstravo informacijos pasidalijimo ir patirties plëtotës svarbà kokybës uþtikrinimo procese”.² Tais paèiais metais buvo parengtas pirmasis planas kokybei Ispanijos universitetuose skatinti(Ministerio de educación y ciencia, 1995). Tai buvo penkeriø metø programa, kuria buvo sie- kiama trijø tikslø: sukurti universitetø kokybës kultûrà, ásteigti kokybës uþtikrinimo agentûras daugelyje universitetø ir ágy- vendinti agentûrø veiklà padedant kai kuriø regionø valdþiai.³ 1998 m. ði penkeriø metø programa buvo integruota á naujà iniciatyvà, kurià pasiûlë Europos kokybës uþtikrini- mo tinklas (ENQA), siekdamas skatinti aukðtojo mokslo áver- tinimà. Ðio tinklo tikslas „skleisti informacijà, patirtá, geràjà praktikà ir plëtoti kokybës vertinimà bei kokybës uþtikrini- mà aukðtojo mokslo sistemoje tarp suinteresuotø ðaliø: vi- suomeniniø organizacijø, valdþios ástaigø, aukðtojo moks- lo institucijø ir kokybës uþtikrinimo agentûrø“.⁴ Ðiai idëjai impulsà suteikë Europos Tarybos rekomendacijos dël ben- dradarbiavimo tarp aukðtøjø mokyklø kokybës uþtikrinimo srityje⁵ ir Bolonijos deklaracija.⁶ Penktasis ðiø rekomenda- cijø teiginys ragina tobulinti bendradarbiavimà Europoje, apibrëþti kriterijus ir metodus, leidþianèius atlikti aukðtojo mokslo ávertinimo ávairiose Europos ðalyse palygynimà ir tuo remiantis uþtikrinti aukðtojo mokslo kokybæ. Antrasis

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation in European Union public universities is be- coming an emerging issue in these days. The imple- mentation of Maastrich Treatment – which implies the eradication of borders among countries in many as- pects – and the increase in private universities evoke the implementation of evaluative procedures. In this pa- per I will discuss these influences on evaluation of the Music Teacher Education Syllabus at the University of Granada. This evaluation is promoted by the Council of Universities of Spain, as well as by the University of Granada itself. I will discuss some characteristics of the evaluative process, the main data collected, sug- gestions that have been raised in order to improve the quality of this syllabus, and my reflections about qual- ity and participation in evaluation.

My discussion of this evaluation process will be con- cerned both with an illustration of the new standards in the evaluation of higher education in continental Eu- rope, and with the discussion of two critical issues in contemporary institutional evaluation: (1) the promo- tion of participation and participant resistances, and (2) the concept of quality officially supported, focused more on efficiency than on quality. I will use the de- scription of this music education programme evalua- tion at Granada as cultural context in order to work through the contradictions in the different meanings of participation and of quality that participants and stakeholders beheld.

1 OFFICIAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY EMPLOYED

Evaluation in higher education in Spain is a recent is- sue affecting four different institutional levels: European, national, regional, and university. The Council of Uni- versities, a national agency composed of the rectors of every Spanish university, carried out the first efforts in 1992. In 1995, there was an European pilot project for evaluating quality in higher education “which dem- onstrated the value of sharing and developing expe- rience in the area of quality assurance”.² Also promoted that year was the First Plan for Quality at the Universi- ties in Spain(MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN Y CIENCIA, 1995). It was a five-year program that set the three fol- lowing objectives: the establishment of a quality cul- ture at universities; the creation of quality agencies in most of those universities; and the implementation of agencies by some regional governments.³

In 1998, this five-year program was integrated into a new initiative promoted by the European Union to en- courage evaluation in higher education, the European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA). The purpose of this network is to “disseminate information, experiences, good practices and new developments in the field of quality assessment and quality assurance in higher edu- cation between interested parties: public authorities, higher education institutions and quality assurance agen- cies”.⁴ The idea was given momentum by the Recom-

ispaniðkasis kokybës planas universitetuose buvo pradë- tas ágyvendinti 2001 m. ir baigsis 2006 m. (Ministerio de educación, cultura y deporte, 2001).

Ðiame straipsnyje aptariama, kaip ðie metmenys ir nu- rodymai buvo ágyvendinti vienu konkreèiu atveju – muzi- kos mokytojø rengimo Granados universitete programoje.

Straipsnyje siekiama ðiø tikslø: (1) iliustruoti ávertinimo prin- cipø ágyvendinimo sëkmes ir nesëkmes; (2) pristatyti aktu- alias ðvietimo temas, susijusias su ávertinimu, ypaè apie da- lyvavimà ávertinime ir ávertinimo kokybæ; ir (3) pateikti svar- biausià informacijà apie studijas Granados universitete tarp- tautinei auditorijai. Ðiø trijø tikslø bus siekiama interpretavi- mo bûdu – t.y. diskutuojant, kaip naujieji europiniai stan- dartai buvo ágyvendinami aukðtosios mokyklos muzikos mo- kytojo rengimo programoje.

Ávertinimo procesas vyko nuo 2000 m. spalio mën. iki 2002 m. kovo mën., remiantis universitetø tarybos pareng- tu vadovu (Consejo de universidades, 1999). Visi anksèiau iðdëstyti nurodymai ðiame straipsnyje pateikiami pragma- tiðkai. Tai reiðkia, kad toks pat metodas buvo taikomas vi- suose Ispanijos universitetuose ir panaðus metodas ENQA priklausanèiø Europos ðaliø universitetuose.

Vertinimo metodika apima keturis etapus. Pirma, suku- riama vidinë ávertinimo komisija, kurià sudaro studentai, akademinis ir kitas personalas. Fakulteto administracinë tary- ba paskiria universiteto personalo atstovus á komitetà. Visø katedrø, dalyvaujanèiø ávertinime, susitarimu iðrenkamas prezidentas. Studentai iðrenka savo atstovus. Mûsø atveju buvo iðrinkti keturi fakulteto dëstytojai, trys bakalauro studi- jø studentai ir vienas administracijos atstovas. Man, kaip Mu- zikinio lavinimo katedros nariui, buvo patikëtas komiteto pre- zidento vaidmená.

Pirmame etape komisijos uþdavinys buvo surinkti kie- kybinius ir kokybinius duomenis. Mes tai atlikome pasitel- kæ du ðaltinius: duomenis ið centrinës administracijos – pvz., studentø, iðlaikiusiø kiekvienà dalykà, skaièiø, studentø, uþ- siregistravusiø á kiekvienà pasirenkamà dalykà, skaièiø ir t.t. Katedrose buvo gauti duomenys apie apgintø disertaci- jø ir iðspausdintø moksliniø darbø skaièiø; anketos buvo iðsiøstos per 2000/2001 mokslo metø rudens ir pavasario semestrus. Mûsø studentai dalyvavo trijose apklausose: (1) apie paslaugas ir árangà; (2) apie dëstymà; (3) treèio kurso studentai atsakë á klausimus apie praktikà pradinëse mo- kyklose ir atitinkamuose seminaruose, skirtuose profesiniam tobulëjimui. Pastaràjà anketà sudarë vidinis komitetas. Rek- torato tarnyba, atsakinga uþ ávertinimà, pateikë kitas pana- ðias formas visam universitetui. Statistikos darbuotojai, dir- busieji toje ávertinimo institucijoje, atliko statistinæ analizæ.

Kiekvienoje formoje buvo praðoma pateikti kokius nors duo- menis apie respondentà: lytá, gimimo vietà ir t. t. Po to stu- dentai turëjo ávertinti kiekvienà teiginá skalëje nuo 1 iki 10.

Prieð teiginius bûdavo paraðyta taisyklë: Ávertinkite ðiuos aspektus nuo 1 iki 10. Teiginiø pavyzdþiai: „Jûsø darbo truk- më per savaitæ studijuojant ðá dalykà; jûsø lûkesèiai prieð prasidedant ðiam kursui”, ir t. t. Ðiø formø pavyzdþiai pa- teikti prieduose. Skalës vidurinis taðkas (5,5 balai) buvo lai- komas minimaliu priimtinu rezultatu visose apklausose. Aka- deminio personalo apklausai buvo parengta kita atvirø klau- simø anketa, todël statistinë analizë èia nebuvo taikoma.

Ðitaip buvo renkama informacija apie dëstyma, tyrimus ir paslaugas bei árangà, – tris veiklos sferas,– kurios buvo áver- tinamos.

mendation of the Council on European Cooperation in Quality Assurance in Higher Education⁵ and the Bolo- gna Declaration.⁶ The fifth point of that statement calls for the promotion of European collaboration in order to define criteria and methods for using comparisons as a way to guarantee quality in higher education. The Se- cond Spanish Plan for Quality at Universities started in 2001 and is to last until 2006 (MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN, CULTURA Y DEPORTE, 2001).

This paper reports how all these frameworks and regulations were implemented in a particular case: the music teacher education program at the University of Granada. My purposes with this paper are: (1) to illus- trate achievements and failures occurring while putting into practice the evaluation principles; (2) to present evaluative topics relevant in education, especially par- ticipation and quality; and (3) to offer information about the degree at Granada potentially relevant to an inter- national audience. These three aims will be carried out in an interpretive way, that is, discussing how in this music teacher education program the new European standards in higher education were implemented.

The evaluation process was carried out from Octo- ber 2000 to March 2002 following a handbook (CONSEJO DE UNIVERSIDADES, 1999) provided by the Council of Universities. This publication is a guide in which all regulations earlier stated are put in a prag- matic way. This means that the method followed is simi- lar at all the Spanish universities, and pretty much simi- lar at those European universities whose countries are into the ENQA.

The methodological approach includes four stages.

First, an internal committee of evaluation constituted by faculty members, students, and staff members is created. The Faculty Administrative Council nominates faculty and staff committee members. The president is chosen by agreement of the main department involved.

Students choose their own representatives. In our case, there were four faculty members, three undergraduate students, and a staff representative. As a member of the music education department, my role was as presi- dent of the committee.

In the first stage, the committee mission is to col- lect quantitative and qualitative data. We did it using two main sources: data from the central administration

– e.g., number of students who had passed each sub- ject, students registered in every optional matter…–, and departments – like the number of dissertations accepted and papers published –, and questionnaires sent out during the 2000/2001 school-year’s fall and spring semesters. Our students answered three sur- veys: (1) about services and facilities; (2) about tea- ching; (3) and juniors answered a third one about their practices at primary schools and corresponding super- vision seminars. The internal committee made this last questionnaire. The Rector’s Office Agency in charge of evaluation provided the other forms, similar for the whole University. Statisticians working for that evalua- tion agency made statistical analysis as well. Each form requested some data about the respondent – gender, hometown…–. Then, students were to rate every item from 1 to 10. Questions were presented below the fol-

Antra, vidinio ávertinimo etapo metu buvo atliekamos duomenø, surinktø pirmame etape, interpretacijos ir priima- mi sprendimai. Remdamasi uþkoduotais duomenimis, ko- misijos nariø stebëjimais ir dalyviø nuomone, vidinë komi- sija paraðë pirmàjà ataskaità. Komitetas buvo skatinamas nurodyti stipriausius ir silpniausius tiriamøjø srièiø – dësty- mo, tyrimø, paslaugø ir árangos – aspektus. Granados uni- versitetui mes taip pat pateikëme pasiûlymus, kaip gerinti esamà dëstymo, tyrimø ir árangos bûklæ. Kadangi Universi- tetø tarybos vadove labai akcentuojamas aktyvus dalyviø ásitraukimas á vertinimo veiklà, buvo papildomai organizuo- tas atviras susirinkimas, kuriame vieðai aptarti surinkti duo- menys, atliktos interpretacijos ir siûlomos rekomendacijos.

Norëjome sulaukti gráþtamojo ryðio, kad galëtume modifi- kuoti interpretacijas ir jas papildyti naujais siûlymais. Dau- guma susirinkimo metu iðsakytø komentarø buvo átraukti á galutiná pirminës ataskaitos variantà. Susirinkimas ávyko ir pirminë ataskaita buvo paraðyta 2001 m. birþelio mënesá.

Treèiame etape buvo atliktas iðorinis ávertinimas. Iðori- nio vertinimo komisija, á kurià buvo átraukti profesoriai ið kitø Ispanijos universitetø, apsilankë kolegijoje ar fakultete, kuriø programos buvo pateiktos ávertiniti. Komisija iðanali- zavo pirminæ ataskaità, lankë patalpas, kuriose organizuo- jamos studijos ir ávertino iðteklius. Komisijos nariai susitiko su visais vertinamojo sektoriaus nariais: katedrø vadovais, akademinio personalo nariais, kitais darbuotojais, studen- tais ir absolventais. Toks visø suinteresuotø pusiø dalyvavi- mas numatytas Universitetø tarybos vadove esanèiuose rei- kalavimuose. Praëjus kelioms savaitëms po vizito, komisi- ja atsiuntë vizito rezultatø ataskaità, kurioje iðreiðta nuomo- në apie pirminës ataskaitos teisingumà.

Aptariamu atveju iðorinë vertintojø komisija, susidedanti ið keturiø profesoriø, lankësi Granados universiteto Eduko- logijos fakultete 2002 m. sausio mënesá, siekdama ávertinti dvi – uþsienio kalbos ir muzikos mokytojø rengimo progra- mas. Komisija pateikë bendrà ataskaità apimanèià abiejø programø vertinimà. Muzikos mokytojø rengimo programos ávertinimas neatitiko vidinës komisijos ávertinimo tik pagal tris punktus. Kritikos smaigalys buvo nukreiptas á statisti- niø duomenø patikimumà. Iðorinë komisija teigë, kad áver- tinimas nevisai pagrástas (valid), nes iðanalizuotas per ma- þas anketø skaièius – 78. Tik toks skaièius respondentø apklausoje atsakë á klausimus apie árangà, nes tuo metu, kai vyko apklausa, treèio kurso studentai atliko praktikà mo- kyklose. Nepaisant to, manytume, kad duomenys pagrásti, nes savo nuomonæ pareiðkë pirmakursiai ir antrakursiai.

Dëstymo vertinimo apklausoje, atliktoje rudens ir pavasa- rio semestrø metu, surinkta atitinkamai 650 ir 785 anketos.

Studentai turëjo uþpildyti po vienà anketà apie kiekvienà dalykà, á kurá jie buvo uþsiregistravæ. Atliekant praktikumø ávertinimà, ið 126 studentø grupës gauti 75 respondentø atsakymai. Be to, rezultatai atitiko duomenis, gautus ið ad- ministracijos apklausos, ir komentarus, iðsakytus atvirø su- sirinkimø metu. Pabaigoje Rektoriaus ávertinimo instituci- jos darbuotojai atliko statistinæ analizæ, atsiþvelgdami á kiek- vienos imties charakteristikas. Mes, vidinës ávertinimo ko- misijos nariai, manome, kad visi duomenys patikimi ir pagrásti. Iðimtá gali sudaryti nebent tik árangos ávertinimo ap- klausos duomenys.

Ketvirtame etape vidinë vertinimo komisija turëjo para- ðyti galutinæ ataskaità. Ji buvo raðoma remiantis ankstes- nëmis dviem ataskaitomis iðkeliant stipriausias ir silpniau-

lowing rule: Rate from 1 to 10 the following aspects.

Items samples are: “your weekly work for this subject;

your expectations before you started this course”, and so on. Those forms are shown in annexes. In all sur- veys we regarded 5.5, the middle point on that scale, the minimum rate to be considered acceptable. There was another questionnaire for faculty members. This questionnaire had open questions, so statistical analy- sis was not applied. This is how we got information about teaching, research, and services and facilities, the three ambits to be evaluated.

Second, the internal evaluation phase deals with interpretations and judgements based on the data col- lected in the previous stage. Using coded data, com- mittee members observations and participants’ opin- ions, the internal committee writes a first report. Com- mittees are encouraged to point out the strongest and weakest features of services and facilities, research, and teaching. At Granada, we also raised proposals to improve current instruction, research, and facilities. As participants’ involvement is the most emphasized point in the handbook to counselling committees, we organ- ized, in addition, an open meeting to discuss publicly the data collected, interpretations raised, and recom- mendations suggested. We wanted feedback, modi- fying and adding new interpretations and proposals.

Most of the comments were included in the final ver- sion of that early report. This meeting and this early report occurred in June 2001.

The third stage concerns external evaluation. An ex- ternal commission with professors from other Spanish universities visits the faculty or college having the pro- gramme to be evaluated. This committee analyses the earlier report. Its work consists mainly of visiting facilities and resources. The members hold open meetings with every sector involved in the degree: heads of department, faculty members, staff, students, and alumni too. Partici- pation is a requirement in this phase too, according to the Council of Universities’ guidelines. A few weeks after their visit, the committee sends a report of findings in- cluding their opinion of the veracity of the early report.

In our case, a four-professor external committee vi- sited the Granada faculty of education in January 2002 to evaluate two teacher education programmes: foreign lan- guage and music education. They submitted a joint re- port covering both degrees. With regard to the music education programme evaluation, there was agreement with the internal committee except on three points. The most important had to do with the validity of the statistical data. The externals perceived the validity weak based on the low number of questionnaires, 78. This number was correct for the services surveys, because juniors were in the practice phase at schools when we sent out the ques- tionnaires. Despite that, we still considered the data to be valid, having freshmen and sophomore students in mind.

With regard to teaching surveys, we collected 650 and 785 questionnaires in the fall and spring semesters, re- spectively. Students had to fill one form per subject en- rolled. With the practicum survey we got 75 responses from a group of 126. In addition, results were consistent with those obtained from administration data and com- ments raised in open meetings. Finally, professionals from

sias puses ir pateikiant programos patobulinimo pasiûly- mus. Baigus ávertinimo procesà, atëjo laikas parengti pro- gramos tobulinimo planà ir imtis ágyvendinti Rektorato pri- imtus pasiûlymus. Ataskaitoje pateiktos rekomendacijos në- ra ápareigojanèios, todël á jas galima atsiþvelgti arba ne.

Granados universiteto galutinë ataskaita buvo baigta 2002 m. kovo mënesá, o iðspausdinta rugsëjo mën. (Aróstegui, J.L. et. al., 2002). Ðiuo metu Granados universitetas rengia tobulinimo planà.

2 MUZIKINIO RENGIMO ATASKAITOS SANTRAUKA

2000–2001 mokslo metais studijuoti pagal trejø metø mu- zikos mokytojo rengimo programà buvo priimta 412 stu- dentø. Priimtø pirmo kurso studentø skaièius kasmet su- maþëdavo nuo 100 iki 90 antrajame kurse. Galbût kitose ðalyse tai bûtø didelis skaièius, taèiau Ispanijoje taip ne- manoma. Kiekviena grupë muzikos dalykø paskaitø metu ir kai kuriø kitø dalykø praktiniø darbø metu dalijama á dvi dalis. Per kai kuriuos praktinius dalykus, sudaranèius apie 50% visos programos kreditø, ðie du pogrupiai dalijami per pusæ á dar maþesnius pogrupius. Tai reiðkia, kad analizuo- jant tokias temas kaip muzikos kompiuterinës programos, vokalinis ar instrumentinis atlikimas studentø skaièius gru- pëse yra nedidelis – maþdaug 30 studentø.⁷

Studentø pasiskirstymas pagal lytá: 48 proc. sudaro vai- kinai, 52 proc. merginos. Toks pasiskirstymas skiriasi nuo kitø mokytojø rengimo programø mûsø fakultete, kur mo- terys sudaro didþiàjà daugumà, iðskyrus kûno kultûros ren- gimo programà, pagal kurià studijuoja daugiau vyrø. Jei laikytumëmës feministinio ir kritinio màstymo, pvz., Apple (1995) – kad mokytojo darbas yra profesija, kuriai lemta bûti feministine, mûsø respondentø pasiskirstymà pagal lytá turëjo lemti muzikinio, o ne pedagoginio iðsilavinimo pasi- rinkimas.

Neiðlaikiusiø egzaminø studentø skaièius buvo gana aukðtas. 72 proc. aukðtesniø nei pirmo kurso studentø ga- vo skolas ið dalykø, kuriuos studijavo tyrimo metu. Ðis skai- èius sutampa su neiðlaikiusiøjø kokio nors studijø dalyko studentø skaièiumi kitose mûsø universiteto mokytojø ren- gimo programose. Analizë pagal lytá ir kursà rodo, kad nor- mali proporcija tarp visø antro kurso merginø ir vaikinø, ne- iðlaikiusiøjø paskutinio dalyko yra 2 ir 3 (1 lentelë).

1 lentelë. Merginø ir vaikinø neiðlaikytø studijø dalykø skaièius antrame ir treèiame kursuose NEIÐLAIKYTI DALYKAI ANTRAKURSIAI TREÈIAKURSIAI

Vaikinai 65% 87%

Merginos 67% 68%

Analizuojant dabartinio treèiojo kurso ir ankstyvesnius studentø, kurie nebaigë studijø, duomenis, matome, kad egzaminø neiðlaikiusiø vaikinø procentas gana aukðtas – neiðlaikë 87 proc. visø vaikinø treèiakursiø. Èia galimos dvi duomenø interpretacijos: (1) merginos sugeba geriau pri- sitaikyti prie dëstytojø ir dëstymo sistemos; (2) kai kurie dëstytojai nemëgsta studentø vaikinø. Analizuojant bendrà

the Rector’s evaluation agency made a statistical analy- sis, having in mind the characteristics of each sample.

With the possible exception of the services questionnaires, we internals regarded all data as reliable and valid.

Finally, in the fourth stage, the internal committee has to write the final report. It draws from the two pre- vious reports, stressing strongest and weakest points, as well as suggestions to improve the programme.

Once the evaluation process has finished, it is time to prepare an improvement plan to put into practice those suggestions accepted by the Rector’s Office. Recom- mendations included in the report are not prescriptive, and may be followed or not. At the University of Gra- nada, the final report was finished in March 2002, and published in September (ARÓSTEGUI, J.L. ET AL, 2002) Granada University is currently developing the improvement plan.

2 A SUMMARY OF THE MUSIC EDUCATION REPORT

The number of students enrolled in the three-year mu- sic teacher education degree was 412 during the 2000/

2001 school-year. The quantity of freshmen admitted annually was reduced from 100 to 90 the following course. These numbers would be huge for many coun- tries, but they are not very high in Spain. In the music teacher education case, each group is divided in two for music subjects. For some subjects groups are di- vided again in two for practical classes, which are around 50% of the credits of this programme. This means wor- king with around 30 students in topics like music soft- ware and vocal or instrumental performances⁷.

Distribution of students by gender is: 48% men and 52% women. This contrasts with other teacher educa- tion degrees in our Faculty, where women are the over- whelming majority, except in the physical education de- gree, where there are many more men. If we agree with feminist and critical thinking – e.g., APPLE (1995) – that teaching at schools is a profession deemed feminine, our gender distribution is due to music rather than edu- cation having the bigger influence in students’ selec- tion of this degree.

The number of students failing subjects was high.

Of non-freshmen students 72% had failed to get credit in their most recent course. This number is in accor- dance with the ratio of students who failed some sub- ject in other teacher education degrees at our univer- sity. If we analyse these data by gender and course, we find the normal ratio of students who did not pass last courses completely was around 2/3 for all female students and male sophomores too (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of subjects failed refering to sophomores and juniors of male/female gender

SUBJECTS FAILED SOPHOMORES JUNIORS

Male 65% 87%

Female 67% 68%

Of the current junior students – and earlier ones who have not yet finished –, 87% of the total were fail- ing. There are two possible interpretations: (1) women are more adapted to the instructors teaching system;

(2) some instructors not wanting male students. Attend- ing to the overall number of students who have not passed subjects in the first try is very high.

The number of students who did not pass optional subjects, on the other hand, was very low. When fail- ure happened, the student enrolled in a different op- tional subject the next year. The percentage of students who passed optional subjects at first try was 88%, against 75% for required matters. If we join these data with the percentage of students who took that first exam, we find a too wide range of students passing for each subject. We attended to the rate of students who took the tests, in addition to those who passed, because we observed in some subjects a high number of students not taking tests voluntarily. The lowest rate of students overtaking a subject at first try was got in Aural and vocal training, with 18% of students enrolled. The high- est was attained in Practicum I & II, passed by 98% of them. The most outstanding subjects in each end of the scale are shown in the following Table 2.

Table 2. Students who took the tests for the first time and passed them

SUBJECTS %

Aural and vocal training 18

Psychology of education 23

Musical instruments training 32

Rhythmical training and dance 32

Psychological bases on special education 36

Curriculum theory 38

Incidental music, musical creativity,

and new technologies 89

School choir 92

Practicum III 96

Practicum I & II 98

The internal committee and participants in the open meeting raised three possible reasons for these data:

(1) Some instructors demand too high a level of academic performance. Survey results seem to con- firm it;

(2) Students do not work enough. Instructors’ and even students’ perceptions stated in open meetings such a possibility;

(3) Students’ profile has changed. They used to come with prior conservatory musical training, currently it is less frequent. It is not required to have musical knowledge to access this degree program, so we can- not envisage a standard musical background for the next promotion.

With regard to the teaching surveys, the overall ave- rage rating given by students was 6.1 in a scale from 1 studentø, kurie neiðlaikë studijuojamo dalyko ið pirmo kar-

to, skaièiø matome, kad jis labai aukðtas.

Kita vertus, pasirenkamø studijø dalykø neiðlaikiusiø stu- dentø skaièius nedidelis. Neiðlaikæ kokio nors studijø daly- ko egzamino, kitais metais studentai registravosi jau á kità pasirenkamà dalykà. Ið pirmo karto pasirenkamuosius da- lykus iðlaikë 88 proc. studentø, o privalomus dalykus tik 75 proc. Jei palyginsime ðiuos duomenis su studentø, kurie yra bandæ laikyti tà pirmàjá egzaminà procentu, pamatysi- me, kad pagal atskirus dalykus rezultatai labai skiriasi. Bu- vo iðnalizuotas santykis tarp laikiusiø ir egzaminà iðlaikiu- siø studentø skaièiaus, nes pastebëta, jog daugelis studen- tø, stengdamiesi iðvengti skolos, patys nëjo laikyti kai kuriø dalykø egzaminø. Þemiausi rezulatai iðlaikiusiøjø ðá egza- minà ið pirmo karto buvo per „Klausos ir balso treniravimo“

dalyko egzaminà, kurá iðlaikë tik 18 proc. visø uþsiregistra- vusiø studentø. Geriausi rezultatai pasiekti Praktikumo I ir II egzaminø metu – iðlaikë 98 proc. studentø. Labiausiai iðsi- skiriantys dalykai, iðsidëstantys skalës pradþioje arba ga- le, parodyti 2 lentelëje.

2 lentelë. Studentø skaièius ið pirmo karto iðlaikiusiø egzaminà

STUDIJØ DALYKAI PROC.

Klausos ir balso treniravimas 18

Pedagoginë psichologija 23

Muzikos instrumentø ávaldymas 32

Ritminis lavinimas ir ðokiai 32

Psichologiniai specialaus ugdymo pagrindai 36

Mokymo turinio teorija 38

Muzika spektakliui, filmui, muzikinë kûryba

ir naujos technologijos 89

Mokyklinis choras 92

Praktikumas III 96

Praktikumas I ir II 98

Vidinis komitetas ir ávertinimo dalyviai atvirame susirin- kime pateikë tris galimus rezultatø paaiðkinimus:

1. Kai kurie dëstytojai reikalauja per aukðto akademinio atlikimo lygio. Atrodo, kad apklausos rezultatai tai patvirti- na.2. Studentai per maþai dirba. Tokia buvo dëstytojø ir net paèiø studentø nuomonë, pareikðta atviro susirinkimo metu.

3. Pasikeitë studentø kontingentas. Anksèiau studijuoti ástodavo studentai, jau turintys muzikiná iðsilavinimà kon- servatorijoje, dabar tokiø bûna nedaug. Nëra papildomo reikalavimo turëti muzikiná pasirengimà norint studijuoti pa- gal ðià programà; taigi, negalima numatyti muzikiniø pa- grindø standarto perkëlimui á aukðtesná kursà.

Dëstymo kokybës ávertinimo anketose studentø áverti- nimø vidurkis buvo 6.1 skalëje nuo 1 iki 10. Ðis rezultatas gautas susumavus atsakymus ið kiekvienos anketos.⁸ Ap- tariamo dokumento vertimas pateiktas 1 priede.

Anketos klausimai suskirstyti á tris temines grupes: stu- dentai, studijø dalykas ir dëstytojai. Paskutinës temos áver-

to 10. This score is the mean attained from the sum of all items across every form.⁸ A translation of this document is provided in Annex 1.

Questionnaire items are grouped by three topics: stu- dents, subject matter, and instructors. This last section got the lowest score, 5.6 on average. The item worst scored was students’ deployment of tutoring time, with X=2.7.⁹ The responses here were very low. This means the scarce usage by students do of tutoring time, and the lack of incentive by instructors. The items regarding students’ regularity attending classes got the best mark (X=8.0).

We also used correlations. The item about students’

satisfaction with the instructors’ teaching correlated with instructors’ motivation, clarity and order in explanation, and the using of different explanation methods. Correla- tion coefficients were between 0.7 and 0.8. Other corre- lations were much lower.

As students filled out a form for each subject enrolled, we were able to make a statistical comparative analysis among subjects. For the most part, music subjects got a bit higher average mark than general subjects. Students are likely scoring higher music subjects for the same rea- son whereby they preferred optional subjects related to music. They are more involved in music rather than in education or any other topic. Another possible interpre- tation is that music instructors are better than other fac- ulties at the Education Building, but there are no objec- tive reasons to think instructors from any department are particularly better or worst than others.

When we tried to find out a possible relation between how the students rated the questionnaires per subject, and degrees attained in each subject, we could not find any relationship. Courses with highest degrees do not necessarily get the highest marks, and vice versa. Spa- nish language and literature got the lowest students’ score

– fall semester– on most of the items. Foreign language got the highest – spring semester. No other subjects stood out in the same extent than those two matters.

Sometimes, subjects with two student groups, each taught by a different professor, scored very differently.

This confirms, once again, that instructors have a crucial influence on students’ perceptions. This also explains the high mark reached in the tutoring item in School mana- gement (X=5.7) compared with the overall score attained.

That instructor stressed the using of tutoring.

The main problem with the practicum was that not many students could attend practice with music teachers while they were out at schools. The practicum survey scores were similar to those just discussed. The overall average score attained was 6.4. Tutoring again got the lowest, and the relevance for their professional lives of the experience of working at schools got the highest (X=8.3). One of the five instructors supervising students at schools got a very high average mark, 9.2. The other instructors scored between 6.1 and 6.6. A translated copy of this questionnaire is shown at Annex 2.

The next issue enquired was research. The first source of data used was the number of professors, associated teachers, teacher assistants, and other faculty members in each department involved in the music teacher educa- tion degree. For instance, the existence of a professor in tinimo rezultatai buvo þemiausi (vidurkis – 5,6). Blogiau-

siai ávertintas laiko, skirto individualioms konsultacijoms su dëstytojais, panaudojimas (X=2.7).⁹ Atsakymai buvo neigiami. Tai rodo, kad studentai retai iðnaudoja jiems skirtø konsultacijø laikà, o dëstytojai nerodo iniciatyvos.

Geriausiai studentai vertina paskaitø lankymà (X=8.0).

Taikytas ir koreliacijø metodas. Studento pasitenkini- mas dëstytojo darbu sietas su dëstytojo motyvacija, aið- kiu ir nuosekliu medþiagos iðdëstymu ir ávairiø aiðkinimo metodø taikymu. Koreliacijos koeficientai svyravo nuo 0.7 iki 0.8. Kitos koreliacijos buvo daug þemesnës.

Kadangi studentai pildë kiekvieno dalyko, á kurá jie bu- vo uþsiregistravæ, ávertinimo formas, galëjome atlikti sta- tistinæ lyginamàjà dalykø analizæ. Daugeliu atveju muzikos disciplinos gavo geresnius ávertinimus nei bendrieji daly- kai. Atrodo, kad studentai geriau ávertino muzikos discipli- nas dël vienos prieþasties – jie teikë pirmenybæ pasirenka- miems dalykams, susijusiems su muzika. Jie labiau domi- si muzika negu jos mokymu ar kitais dalykais. Kita galima interpretacija – muzikos dalykø dëstytojai geresni nei kiti fakulteto Edukologijos katedros dëstytojai, nors nëra ob- jektyviø prieþasèiø manyti, kad kokios nors katedros dës- tytojai bûtø daug geresni ar daug blogesni nei kiti.

Spëjimas, kad egzistuoja ryðys tarp kiekvieno dalyko kokybës ávertinimo atskirose anketose ir studentø paþy- miø, gautø ið to dalyko, nepasitvirtino. Geriausiai studentø ávertintø dalykø paþymiai nebûtinai buvo labai geri, ir at- virkðèiai. Ispanø kalba ir literatûra studentø buvo þemiau- siai ávertinta rudens semestre pagal daugelá kriterijø. O pa- vasario semestre Uþsienio kalbos gavo aukðèiausius áver- tinimus. Kiti dalykai taip ryðkiai kaip ðie du neiðsiskyrë.

Pasitaikë atvejø, kai tas pats dalykas, kurá dviejose studentø grupëse dësto skirtingi profesoriai, buvo verti- namas labai skirtingai. Tai dar kartà rodo, kad dëstytojai daro didþiulæ átakà studentø suvokimui. Tai taip pat pa- deda suprasti, kodël klausimas apie individualø konsul- tavimà Mokyklos vadybos disciplinos kurse gavo aukð- èiausià ávertinimà (X=5.7) palyginti su bendru dalyko áver- tinimu. Ðio dalyko dëstytojas akcentavo individualaus konsultavimo reikðmæ.

Pagrindinë studentø praktikos problema buvo ta, kad jà atlikdami mokyklose tik dalis studentø jà atliko esant mokykloje muzikos mokytojams, nes dauguma jø tuo me- tu nebuvo mokykloje. Praktikos ávertinimo rezultatai buvo panaðûs á kà tik aptartus rezultatus. Bendras vidutinis ba- las buvo 6.4. Individualus konsultavimas vël buvo labai þe- mai ávertintas, o patirties, ágytos praktikos mokykloje me- tu, svarba mokytojo profesijai gavo aukðèiausius ávertini- mus (X=8.3). Vienas ið penkiø dëstytojø, vadovavusiø stu- dentø praktikai mokykloje, buvo ávertintas aukðèiausiu ba- lu 9.2. Kitø dëstytojø darbo ávertinimas svyravo nuo 6.1 iki 6.6. Ðios anketos vertimas pateiktas 2 priede.

Kitas analizuotas klausimas buvo dëstytojø atliekami tyrimai. Pirmasis duomenø ðaltinis buvo profesoriø, do- centø, dëstytojø asistentø ir kito akademinio personalo nariø, dirbanèiø muzikos mokytojo rengimo programoje, skaièius kiekvienoje katedroje. Pavyzdþiui, ar katedroje dësto profesorius, ar katedros nariø amþiaus vidurkis gali rodyti aukðtená tos katedros sutelktumà. Darëme prielai- dà, kad tam tikra katedros sudëties pusiausvyra gali tu- rëti átakos tyrimams. Antrasis naudotø duomenø ðaltinis buvo 1999–2000 m. kursø apraðas, kurá iðleido universi-

a department or the average age of department mem- bers might indicate a bigger consolidation of that depart- ment. We assumed that certain balances in the depart- ment compositions might aid research. The second source employed was the 1999/2000 annual course in- ventory edited by the University (UNIVERSIDAD DE GRA- NADA, 2000). Theoretically, this book included all activi- ties of that school year, but not everything was included.

Department instructors are mostly in their forties, with some exceptions in their fifties, or thirties. This is the case of the Music Education department, where most of in- structors are in their thirties. We found a balance between full and interim instructors in most divisions. This means that departments are established. With regard to scien- tific production, all departments offered the PhD degree.

There was also a high number of research groups (e.g., Philology with eight, Curriculum and Instruction five). The department with most research projects ongoing was De- velopmental Psychology. This department had ten projects in progress with all its members involved. Par- ticipation in conferences and seminars was high in De- velopmental Psychology, Language and Literature, and Music Education. Curriculum and Instruction stood out in the organization of those events. All departments had a high production of papers and in book chapters. In short, we perceived good research work albeit not widely enough circulated.

The last issue in our report was services and facilities at the university. We used a questionnaire dealing with three different ambits: services at the education building

– cleaning and maintenance, copier service…; campus wide services provided by the university for the whole community – sports, central library…–; and external uni- versity services (telephones and ATMs, grants…). The form was structured as the teaching survey was. After some questions about gender, kind of residence at Gra- nada, and the like, students were requested to rate each service from 1 to 10. Each service was an item. The form is provided in Annex 3.

Response rates to some items was low, e.g., about the student information centre, or the permanent training service. This is because students did not know those fa- cilities. The average mark attained in the survey after all the scores were summed was 5.0 on a scale from 1 to 10. The lowest score was for the registration procedure (X=2.7). The employment agency (X=3.2), the students’

information centre (X=3.2), and education building fa- cilities (X=3.6) also scored very low. There was disagree- ment between the external and internal committee with regard to the appositeness of facilities. The external com- mission deemed facilities good enough. We enquired about marks obtained in other programme evaluations carried out at the Education Building at the same time.

Physical education students scored facilities with 5.1. It is still low in a scale from 1 to 10, but not so much as music teacher education students did, 3.6. We concluded that specific facilities in music education were the conse- quence of that score. The internal committee’s percep- tion of those music education resources agreed with that low mark. The cafeteria service at the Education building was the highest scored (X=8.4). Other services valued by students were cleaning and maintenance of the edu- tetas (Universidad de Granada, 2000). Teoriðkai þiûrint

ðioje knygoje turëjo bûti suraðyta ávairi tø mokslo metø veikla, bet ið tikrøjø èia átraukta ne viskas.

Daugelis katedrø dëstytojø buvo daugiau kaip trisde- ðimties metø, vienu kitu atveju – daugiau kaip keturiasde- ðimties ar þemiau dvideðimties. Muzikos katedroje daugu- mos dëstytojø buvo virð dvideðimties. Daugelyje katedrø buvo aptiktas balansas tarp pilnà ir dalá laiko dirbanèiø dës- tytojø – tai rodo, jog katedros yra ákurtos. Kalbant apie mokslinæ produkcijà reikia pasakyti, kad visose katedrose buvo sudarytos sàlygos ágyti daktaro laipsná. Buvo sukur- ta daug tyrimø grupiø (pvz., Filologijos – aðtuoni nariai, mokymo turinio ir mokymo – penki). Daugiausia mokslo tiriamøjø projektø ágyvendinama Raidos psichologijos ka- tedroje. Ðiuo metu katedroje vykdoma deðimt projektø, o juose dalyvauja visi katedros nariai. Raidos psichologijos, Kalbø ir literatûros bei Muzikos mokytojø rengimo kated- ros labai aktyviai dalyvavo konferencijose ir seminaruose, ir buvo ávertintos aukðtais balais. Ðiø renginiø organizavi- mu iðsiskyrë Mokymo turinio ir Mokymo katedros. Visose katedrose buvo parengta daug spausdintø straipsniø ir sky- riø knygose. Trumpai tariant, tiriamasis darbas vykdomas gerai, taèiau jo sklaida nepakankama.

Paskutinë mûsø ataskaitos tema apëmë paslaugø ir árangos universitete vertinimà. Tyrimui buvo sudaryta an- keta, kurioje kausiama apie tris veiklos sferas: paslau- gos edukologijos pastate – valymas ir tvarkos palaiky- mas, kopijavimo paslaugos ir t. t.; paslaugos, kurias tei- kia universitetas savo bendruomenei visoje universiteto teritorijoje – sporto paslaugos, universiteto centrinës bib- liotekos paslaugos ir t. t. ir iðorinës universiteto paslau- gos (telefonai ir bankomatai, stipendijos ir kt.). Anketos formos struktûra buvo tokia pat, kaip ir apklausos apie dëstymà anketa. Ið pradþiø buvo pateikti keli klausimai apie lytá, gyvenimo pobûdá Granadoje ir pan. Po to stu- dentai turëjo ávertinti kiekvienà paslaugà skalëje nuo 1 iki 10. Kiekvienai paslaugai buvo skirtas atskiras punktas.

Forma pateikta 3 priede.

Kai kuriø punktø ávertinimai buvo þemi, pvz., apie stu- dentø informavimo centrà ar pastovias studijø paslaugas.

Tai gali rodyti tai, kad studentai nesupaþindinti su ðiø ins- titucijø veikla. Vidutinis ðiø paslaugø ávertinimo balas ska- lëje nuo 1 iki 10, susumavus visus ávertinimus, – 5.0.

Þemiausiu balu ávertintos registracijos procedûros (X=2.7). Ádarbinimo agentûra (X=3.2), studentø informa- vimo centras (X=3.2), ir studijø sàlygos Edukologijos ka- tedros pastate (X=3.6) taip pat buvo ávertintos prastai.

Vidinio komiteto ir iðorinës vertinimo komisijos ávertini- mai dël studijø sàlygø tinkamumo nesutapo. Iðorinë ko- misija gana gerai ávertino studijø patalpas ir árangà. Tei- ravomës apie tuo paèiu metu atliktus kitø studijø progra- mø, vykdomø Edukologijos katedros pastate, ávertinimus.

Kûno kultûros mokytojø rengimo programos studentai ávertino árangà 5.1. Tai gana þemas ávertinimas deðimties balø skalëje, bet jis aukðtesnis nei bûsimø muzikos mo- kytojø ávertinimas. Jie ávertino savo studijø programos árangà tik 3.6 balo. Galime daryti iðvadà, kad toká þemà rezultatà lëmë muzikos mokytojø rengimui bûtinos spe- cifinës árangos stoka. Vidinis komitetas taip pat muzikos mokytojø rengimui bûtinus materialinius iðteklius áverti- no gana prastai. Kavinë Edukologijos katedros pastate buvo ávertinta aukðèiausiais balais (X=8.4). Kitas paslau-

gas studentai ávertino taip: valymas ir tvarkos palaikymas Edukologijos katedros pastate (X=6.6), biblioteka (X=6.3), socialinis klimatas universitete (X=6.8), universiteto valgyk- los patalpos (X=6.9), universiteto gyvenamieji pastatai (X=6.4).

Taikydami inferencialinæ (apibendrinamàjà) statistikà pa- lyginome grupiø atsakymus. Rezultatai parodë vienà svar- bø skirtumà: antrojo kurso studentai visas paslaugas áverti- no þemiau nei jø kolegos pirmakursiai, iðskyrus kavinæ, ku- rià antrakursiai ávertino aukðtesniais balais. Manome, kad ði iðvada yra svarbi.

Paskutinëje ávertinimo ataskaitos dalyje pateikëme re- komendacijas visoms universiteto bendruomenëms ir pa- daliniams, atsakingiems uþ programos ágyvendinimà:

• Rektoratui: (1) Pagerinti universiteto teikiamø paslaugø sklaidà. (2) Sukurti specialø testà priëmimui á muzikos mo- kytojo rengimo programos studijas, nes dabartinis panaðus kaip ir visiems stojantiems á universitetà. (3) Sukurti sàsajas tarp muzikos programø konservatorijoje ir muzikos mokyto- jo rengimo programos universitete, kadangi studijos kon- servatorijoje nëra universitetinës studijos. Paradoksalu, bet konservatorijos aukðtesnysis laipsnis atitinka universiteto ma- gistro laipsná.

• Dekanatams ir rektoratui: (1) Sudaryti sàlygas vieðam dekanatø vadybos iðtyrimui. (2) Pagerinti studentø regist- racijos procedûras¹⁰. (3) Turëtø bûti daugiau pasirenkamø dalykø grupiø, kad kiekvienas studentas galëtø realiai rink- tis. (4) Pratæsti administracijos darbo laikà, kad po pietø studentai galëtø á jà kreptis. Dabar á administracijà galima kreiptis nuo 9 iki 14 val., nors yra studentø, uþsiregistravu- siø á dieninius (nuo 8:30 iki 14:30) ir vakarinius kursus (nuo 15:30 iki 21:30). (5) Pagerinti muzikinius iðteklius ir árangà

– galutinëje ataskaitoje mes pateikëme ðeðis specifinius pa- siûlymus. (6) Iðplësti patalpø studijoms ir darbui grupëse plotà bei universiteto bibliotekos plotà, nes biblioteka jau darosi per maþa saugoti visus reikiamus ðaltinius. (7) To- liau laikytis skaidymo á grupes per muzikinio lavinimo prak- tikà principo. (8) Gerinti studentø praktikà mokyklose¹¹. (9) Kai kuriuos antro kurso studentams siûlomus dalykus ru- dens semestre perkelti á pavasario semestrà, nes akivaiz- du, kad rudens semestre dëstoma per daug dalykø. (10) Pagerinti muzikos mokytojø rengimo program๲.

• Studentams: (1) Prisiimti daugiau atsakomybës pa- tiems. Kai kurie surinkti duomenys rodo, kad studentai tu- rëtø daugiau dirbti patys ir ásitraukti á universiteto vadybà per savo atstovus¹³.

• Dëstytojams: (1) Skatinti studentø individualø konsul- tavimàsi su dëstytojais, kuris ðiuo metu per maþai panau- dojamas. (2) Labiau nei iki ðiol kontroliuoti studentø darbà.

Dëstytojai buvo puikiai ávertinti tais atvejais, kai nereikalin- gas tiesioginis dëstytojo ir studentø ryðys, pvz., dëstymo aiðkumas, iðtekliø panaudojimas ir t. t. Taèiau tais atvejais, kai reikalingas tiesioginis dëstytojø ir studentø kontaktas – akademiniai santykiai, kontrolë ir t. t., rezultatai buvo pras- ti. Anksèiau paminëtos koreliacijos – studentus tenkinan- èio darbo ryðys su kitais trim klausimais – taip pat suvokia- mas ir ðiuo atveju. (3) Pagerinti kai kuriø dëstomø dalykø kokybæ. Kaip rodo aptarti duomenys, kai kuriø dalykø dës- tymas gali bûti pagerintas ið esmës. (4) Skatinti kritiná màs- tymà ir vengti mechaninio mokymosi atmintinai. (5) Tinka- mai iðnaudoti praktikai skirtà laikà. Þemi vertinimai atsklei- dþia silpnà praktikø ágyvendinimà. (6) Organizuoti dëstyto-

cation building (X=6.6), education library (X=6.3), so- cial climate at the university (X=6.8), university dining halls (X=6.9), and university residences (X=6.4).

We compared groups using inferential statistics. We found one relevant difference: sophomores scored all services lower than their freshmen mates, except the cafeteria, whose mark was higher for sophomores. We thought this exception important.

The final section of the evaluation report included the recommendations we raised for the different com- munities and establishments involved in this pro- gramme:

• To the Rector’s Office: (1) To make a bigger diffu- sion of university services than that currently happening.

(2) To create a specific test to gain access to the music teacher education degree program. Now there is a test similar for any student who wants entry to the univer- sity. (3) To establish links between musical degrees at the conservatory and the music teacher education de- gree. Studies at conservatories do not have university rank. Paradoxically, the conservatory superior degree is equivalent to a university master degree.

• To the Dean’s and Rector’s Offices: (1) To open the management of the Dean’s Office to public scru- tiny. (2) To improve registration procedures¹⁰. (3) More optional subjects groups should be created in order to guarantee that every student has real choices. (4) To open administration services in the afternoon – nowa- days, administration is open for the public from 9 to 2, whereas there are students enrolled in matinee (from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm) and evening (from 3:30 pm to 9:30 pm) schedules. (5) To improve musical resources and facilities – in the final report we included six spe- cific suggestions. (6) To expand rooms available for study and working groups, as well as for the education library, which is getting small for the references stored.

(7) To go on with the policy of splitting groups for prac- tices in music education. (8) To improve the students’

practices at schools¹¹. (9) To change some subjects that sophomores take in the fall semester to spring – they feel that fall semester is too loaded. (10) To im- prove the music education programme¹².

• To students: (1) To assume more of their own re- sponsibilities. Some data collected indicate students should be more involved in their own work, as well as the university management through representatives¹³.

• To faculty members: (1) To promote tutoring, clearly underused. (2) To monitor students’ work more than at present. Instructors scored high on items in which there is no need for direct relation with students

– clarity in explanations, resources employed…–. Low scores were obtained in items where that relationship is required – academic relations with students, moni- toring…–. Correlations earlier stated among students’

satisfaction with the instructors’ teaching with three other items go in this same sense. (3) To improve qua- lity in some subjects. According to data discussed, it is clear that some subjects can be improved substantially.

(4) To promote more critical thinking, and less rote work.

(5) To fulfil practical credits. Low ratings on that item is a clue of weak accomplishment. (6) To organize instruc- tors’ own work to give coherence and complementarity

jø darbà taip, kad tø paèiø dalykø dëstymas bûtø darnes- nis ir papildytø vienas kità. Duomenys rodo, kad ðioje srity- je trûksta koordinacijos. Kai kurie vidinio komiteto nariai mano, kad nesutarimai katedroje gali bûti ðios problemos esmë.

• Universiteto bendruomenei: (1) Skatinti dalyvavimà instituciniuose forumuose ir ávertinimo procesuose. Dau- guma studentø nedalyvavo apklausose, nors, þinoma, jie buvo atstovaujami. Akademinis personalas bei kiti darbuo- tojai taip pat labai ribotai dalyvavo vertinime. (2) Demokra- tizuoti kiekvienà universiteto veiklos sritá. Èia nekalbame apie formalià demokratijà, kuri tikrai egzistuoja, bet apie faktinæ demokratijà, kur kiekviena bendruomenë jauèiasi esanti platesnës universiteto bendruomenës dalis priklau- somai nuo to, kiek dalyvauja institucijos veikloje.

Ataskaitos pabaigoje pateikiamas ðiø rekomendacijø ágyvendinimo grafikas ir numatomi tolimesnës veiklos pri- oritetai.

3 KOKYBË IR DALYVAVIMAS ÁVERTINIME

Aptarus visus duomenis, pastebëtas akivaizdus didþiulis ne- atitikimas tarp institucijos ketinimø ir ávertinimo realybës.

Iðskirsiu du pagrindinius nesutapimus: tai kokybë ir daly- vavimas.

Kokybës atveju, oficialiuose dokumentuose numatytas ir kiekybiniø, ir kokybiniø duomenø panaudojimas. Ðis klau- simas keliamas taip, kad duomenø rinkimas ir jø interpre- tavimas laikomi dviem skirtingais ávertinimo proceso eta- pais. Taèiau renkant duomenis ið objektyviø duomenø ban- kø ir naudojant apklausos testus, prie kuriø parengimo la- biausiai prisidëjo Rektoratas, akivaizdu, kad labiausiai bu- vo kreipiamas dëmesys á kiekybinius, o ne kokybinius duo- menis. Statistiniai duomenys, atrodo, yra vienintelis pripa- þintas patikimø duomenø ðaltinis. Ið tikrøjø galëjome nutar- ti iðstudijuoti atskirà atvejá ar taikyti kitas kokybinio tyrimo priemones. Kai kurios kitos ávertinimo komisijos taip ir darë.

Apie tai màstëme ir, ko gero, turëjome tai atlikti. Svarbiau- sia prieþastis, dël kurios nepasitelkëme kokybiniø tyrimo metodø yra ta, kad jie nebuvo aiðkiai apibrëþti universitetø tarybos pateiktame vadove.

Kiekybiðkumo akcentavimas daug aiðkesnis 2001–2006 metø ávertinimo plane. Naujajame vadove (Consejo de uni- versidades, 2001) pateiktas deðimties puslapiø rodikliø prie- das, t. y. kiekybiniai rodikliai, kurie gaunami atlikus mate- matinius skaièiavimus. Pavyzdþiui, rodiklis RecHum1 – þmo- giðkieji iðtekliai 1 – yra gaunamas padalijus pagrindinëse pareigose dirbanèiø dëstytojø skaièiø ið viso dëstytojø skai- èiaus. Ðis skaièius dauginamas ið 100 ir reiðkiamas pro- centais dviejø ðimtøjø tikslumu. Tos paèios matematinës procedûros atliekamos ir su kitais rodikliais, sugrupuotais á penkias skirtingas kategorijas¹⁴. Ðie rodikliai yra privalomi, prieðingai nei rodikliai pirmajame plane. Vadove akcentuo- jama interpretacijø svarba. Taèiau aiðku, kad pagrindiniai duomenys turi bûti objektyvûs skaièiai. Tiesà sakant, kar- tais net neaiðku, kà objektyvumas tiksliai reiðkia. Siekdami tiksliø skaièiø, prarandame kai kuriuos duomenis, kuriuos skaièiais neámanoma iðreikðti. Taèiau problema slypi ne skai- èiuose, paprastai prarandami esminiai dalykai ir ðiame, ir

within subjects –data showed there was not much co- ordination. Some members of the internal committee thought that department disagreements could be ha- ving consequences for this issue.

• To the university community: (1) To promote par- ticipation, both in institutional forums and evaluation processes. Most students did not take part in the polls, although of course they were represented. The faculty and staff members had too limited an involvement. (2) To democratise every university ambit. We do not talk about formal democracy, obviously existing, but fac- tual democracy, in which every community feels part of a wider one university depending on their involve- ment.

The report finished by scheduling and prioritising those recommendations.

3 QUALITY AND PARTICIPATION IN EVALUATION

After all the data discussed, I found a big disparity be- tween institutional intention and the reality of evalua- tion. I perceive mainly two differences: quality and par- ticipation.

With regard to quality, official documents speak about using both quantitative and qualitative data. This point is so emphasized that data collecting and inter- pretation are considered as two different stages in the evaluation process. However, collecting data from banks of objective data and surveys mostly made by the Rector’s office clearly supported use of quantita- tive data rather than qualitative data. Numerical data seemed to be the only recognized source of reliable data. It is true we could have decided to do a case study or to employ other qualitative tools. Some other evaluation committees did. We thought about that, and we should have done it. The point here is that those tools could be made explicit in the handbook provided by the Council of Universities, and they were not.

This emphasis on quantitativeness is much clearer in the 2001-2006 evaluation plan. In the new handbook (CONSEJO DE UNIVERSIDADES, 2001) there is a ten- page annex of indicators, that is, quantitative indexes to be obtained after mathematical calculation. For in- stance, the indicator RecHum1 – Human resources 1 – is attained by dividing the number of full instructors by the total number of instructors. That number is multi- plied by 100, and shown as a percentage with two deci- mals. The same is done with other indicators grouped in five different categories¹⁴. These indicators are com- pulsory, in contrast with those of the first plan. Empha- sis on interpretation can still be found in the handbook.

However, it is clear that objectivity of numbers is re- quired for the main data. Indeed the numbers are ob- jectives, although many times we do not know exactly what that objectivity accomplishes. We lose some data which are not possible to express by numbers. But the question is not the use of numbers, something worthy in this and many other evaluations. The point is the relegation of qualitative tools to a secondary and inci-

kituose ávertinimuose. Svarbu tai, kad kokybinëms tyri- mo priemonëms skiriama tik antraeilë ar atsitiktinë vieta.

Jei norime objektyviai palyginti universitetus, – to siekia- ma Bolonijos deklaracijoje, – nëra kito pasirinkimo.

Kaip minëta, ðiø programø ávertinimo tikslas buvo pa- gerinti universitete teikiamø paslaugø kokybæ. Taèiau tin- kamesnis bûtø ne kokybës, o rezultatyvumo terminas. Ne- nuostabu, kad konkurencija tarp universitetø tampa svar- bia jø egzistencijos sàlyga. Tai visiðkai nauji standartai Ispanijos ir Europos universitetams. Ið dalies tai ðiuolai- kinio ávertinimo, atliekamo JAV ir Britanijos universitetuo- se, kopija. Iðkeltos temos tampa vis svarbesnës ðiuolai- kinës socialinës sistemos ávertinime. Ar programø áverti- nime reikëtø siekti ne tiek kokybës, kiek rezultatyvumo?

Ar ávertintojai turëtø ðias dvi sàvokas laikyti sinonimais?

Ar konkurencingumas – tai bûdas sukurti galutiná ir pa- grástà ávertinimo mechanizmà? Ar standartizuotas áverti- nimas, atliktas institucijoje, bus reikalingas tik paèios ins- titucijos savireklamai?

Europiniu, nacionaliniu, regioniniu ir universitetiniu lyg- menimis stipriai akcentuojamas visuotinis dalyvavimas, nors ir nelabai sëkmingai. Remdamasis patirtimi, galiu teigti, kad oficiali informacija yra teisinga. Vidinio ir iðori- nio ávertinimo sistemos tik patvirtina ðá tikslà. Problema ta, kad maþai þmoniø tuo tiki, arba nors ir tiki, bet taip nesielgia. Tai vienintelis paaiðkinimas, kodël tiek maþai þmoniø dalyvavo muzikos mokytojo rengimo programos ávertinimo procese.

Pirmoji problema, kilusi Granados universitete, buvo muzikos mokytojø rengimo komiteto paskyrimas. Oficia- liai að buvau paskirtas antruoju prezidentu, bet ið tikrøjø buvau ketvirtas. Dël ávairiø prieþasèiø trys mano kated- ros kolegos atsisakë dalyvauti. Taip pat pasielgë ir fakul- teto akademinio personalo atstovai. Turëjo dalyvauti ke- turi dëstytojai, bet vienas niekada nedalyvavo. Administ- racijos atstovas ateidavo á susirinkimus, bet pabaigoje iðaiðkëjo, kad já domino tik tai, kà mes galime pasakyti apie jo padaliná. Situacija dël studentø nebuvo tokia dra- matiðka, nors ið keturiø jø atstovø liko trys jau ið pat pra- dþiø. Taèiau ir pastarieji nereguliariai lankydavo susirin- kimus, atsiþvelgdami á savo tvarkaraðèius ir iðkilusias pro- blemas. Tà patá galima pasakyti ir apie kitus komisijos narius. Að vienintelis buvau labiausiai átrauktas á ðá proce- sà galbût dël to, kad neturëjau kitos iðeities.

Ðtai taip lengviau arba sunkiau mes rinkome duome- nis ir siuntinëjome anketas. Kai kurie studentai nenorëjo pildyti anketø, argumentuodami, kad tai yra beprasmið- ka. Tai jie pasakydavo, kai auditorijoje nebûdavo dësty- tojo. Dëstytojai buvo linkæ dar maþiau bendradarbiauti.

Jie paprasèiausiai negraþindavo anketø. Tik septynios an- ketos buvo surinktos. Kiti universiteto darbuotojai domë- josi tik tais klausimais, pagal kuriuos buvo vertinama jø veikla. Trylika þmoniø dalyvavo atvirame susirinkime, kur buvo pristatoma pirminë ataskaita, trylika, áskaitant du þmones ið padalinio, atsakingo uþ ávertinimo proceso vyk- dymà universitete. Ðeði studentai ir penki akademinio per- sonalo nariai dalyvavo susirinkime, kuriame diskutuota apie stipriàsias ir silpnàsias mûsø studijø programos pu- ses. Svarstant ðiuos klausimus, kiti universiteto darbuo- tojai nedalyvavo.

Iðorinio vertinimo metu situacija buvo dar átemptes- në. Kaip minëta anksèiau, komitetas taip pat kvietë á atvi-

dental place. If we seek objective comparison among uni- versities, as is stated in the Bologna declaration, we have no choice.

The stated purpose for these evaluation programs is to improve the quality of the universities. But efficiency rather than quality is the more appropriate term. Not sur- prisingly, competitiveness between universities is beco- ming an emergent condition. This is a completely new standard for Spanish and European universities. To a certain extent, it is a copy of the contemporary of evalua- tion of US and British universities. The topics raised are increasingly relevant in current social system evaluation.

Should evaluation of programs be aimed at quality less than efficiency? Should evaluators consider these terms as synonymous? Is competitiveness a way to attain the final and legitimate mechanism of evaluation? Will stan- dardized evaluation implemented by one’s own institu- tion settle into mere self-promotion?

With regard to full participation, it is strongly empha- sized by European, national, regional and university es- tablishments, but without much success. According to my experience, the official message is sincere. The inter- nal and external evaluation system corroborates this pur- pose. The problem is that not many people believe it, or even worst, they believe it but have not acted according- ly. This is the only explanation I have for the very low involvement in the evaluation process of participants in music teacher education programmes.

At Granada, the first problem came with the appoint- ment of the music teacher education committee. Officially, I was the second president designated, but actually I was the fourth. For different reasons, three colleagues from my department declined. The same happened with fa- culty representatives. There should have been four in- structors, but one of them never came. There was a staff representative who attended meetings but in the end seemed only concerned above what we said about his sector. The situation was not so dramatic with students, albeit four representatives were reduced to three at the very beginning. The three participated irregularly, accor- ding to their schedules and the tasks before us. That was true of the other members of the committee as well. I was the one most involved in that evaluation, maybe because I felt I did not have a choice.

With such lights and shadows, this is how we col- lected data and sent out questionnaires. Some students did not want to fill out the surveys, arguing it was use- less. They said that when no instructor was present. Fa- culty members were much less collaborative. They sim- ply did not send back their surveys. Only seven ques- tionnaires were picked up. The staff showed interest only when some issue related to them was dealt with. Thir- teen people attended the open meeting to present the early report, thirteen people, including two from the agency in charge of carrying out the evaluation process at the university. Six students, five faculty members, and no staff members attended the meeting at which we dis- cussed the strongest and weakest points in our academic programme.

During the external phase, the situation was even more stressful. As I stated earlier, that committee also held open meetings with every sector involved in the foreign lan-