Evaluación del profesorado universitario para incentivos individualesrevisión metaevaluativa

  1. Escudero Escorza, Tomás
  2. Pino Mejías, José Luis
  3. Rodríguez Fernández, Celso
Revista:
Revista de educación

ISSN: 0034-8082

Ano de publicación: 2010

Título do exemplar: La transición a la vida activa

Número: 351

Páxinas: 513-537

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Revista de educación

Resumo

Academical, socio-political and economical reasons, and competence among institutions have converted institutional quality, its assurance and enhancement, in a permanent issue of interest and concern for academical and political authorities and managers of educational systems and, particularly, of universities and higher education systems. Teacher merit pay is a mechanism used to manage quality and its improvement in a fair and effective way. This article offers an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the procedure, as well as the synthesis of a metaevaluative revision of the evaluation for teacher individual incentives, promoted by autonomous goverments, that have been generalized in Spanish universities in the last six-eight years. This period of application, in spite of the great diversity among autonomous communities and universities, seems a sufficient period of time to carry on a metaevaluation of the process and its impact and, as much as possible, to offer potential improvement actions. This metaevaluation, an external revision study with several sources and methods and formative orientation, synthesize the situation of the applied models in different autonomous communities, their strengths and weaknesses, their impact on teachers and universities, the evaluation that different implicated sectors made and the change proposals that are suggested. The article conclude with a synthesis of the most relevant results, and a set of suggestions to modify the models and procedures of evaluation, in order to get the foresight goals of improvement in the acomplishment of their functions in teachers and universities.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ACSUG (2008). Informe do procedemento e resultados da convocatoria do ano 2006, da valoración previa á asignación dos complementos de recoñecemento de excelencia curricular docente e investigadora. Santiago de Compostela: ACSUG.
  • Alicias, E. R. (2005). Toward an objective evaluation of teacher performance: The use of variance partitioning analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 30, 1-13.
  • Brinkerhoff, R. O. et al. (1985). Program evaluation: A practitioner's guide fortrainers and educators. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
  • Escudero, T. (2006). La evaluación del profesorado en España en la última década: Nuevos retos. Encuentro «10 años de evaluación de la calidad de las universidades españolas: 1996-2006 Resultados y objetivos». Jaca, 5-6 de junio.
  • Escudero, T., Pino, J. L. y Rodríguez, C. et al. (2006). «Metaevaluación» externa del Plan de Complementos Retributivos, de carácter individualizado, del Personal Docente e Investigador de la Universidad de La Rioja. Logroño: Consejo Social de la Universidad de La Rioja.
  • Federación deEnseñanza CC.OO. (2006). La evaluación del profesorado universitario y sus consecuencias: la perspectiva sindical. VI Foro ANECA, Madrid.
  • FETE-UGT (2007). Informe sobre el complemento autonómico del PDI Laboral de las Universidades Públicas, Gabinete Técnico.
  • Glass, G. V. et. al. (1981). Meta-analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications
  • Henry, G. T. y Rubenstein, R. (2002). Paying for grades: Impact of merit-bases financial aid on educational quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 1, 93-109.
  • Joint Committeeon Standarsfor EducationalEvaluation (1988). The personnel evaluation standars. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
  • Joint Committeeon Standarsfor EducationalEvaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
  • Ley Orgánica 11/1983 de Reforma Universitaria. Boletín Oficial del Estado (España) 1 de septiembre de 1983.
  • Ley Orgánica 6/2001 de Universidades, Boletín Oficial del Estado (España), 24 de diciembre de 2001.
  • Malen, B. (1999). On rewards, punishments, and possibilities: Teacher compensation as an instrument for education reform. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 4, 387-394.
  • Mehrens, W. A. (1990). Combining evaluation data from multiple sources. En J. Millman y L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers (pp. 322-334). Sage Publications: Newbury Park, Ca.
  • Milanowski, A. (2007). Performance pay systems preferences of students preparing to be teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 2, 2, 111-132.
  • Mizala, A. y Romaguera, P. (2004). School and teacher performance incentives: The Latin American experience. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 6, 739-754.
  • Orden 2072/2007 de la Consejería de Educación. Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid, 16 de mayo.
  • Parcerisa, A. (2006). Las consecuencias de la evaluación para el PDI: la visión institucional. El caso de la Universidad de Barcelona, VI Foro ANECA, Madrid.
  • Posavac, E. J. y Carey, R. G. (1989). Program Evaluation. Methods and Case Studies, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
  • Rey, J. M. (2005). Incentivos para la actividad investigadora de los profesores de la universidades públicas españolas. Asociación Española de Ecología Terrestre.
  • Schwandt, Th. A. y Halpern, E. S. (1988). Linking auditing and metaevaluation. Enhancing quality in applied research. Newbury park, CA.: Sage.
  • Scriven, M. (1969). An introduction to meta-evaluation. Educational Product Report, 2, 36-38.
  • Stake, R. (2006). Evaluación comprensiva y evaluación basada en estándares. Barcelona: Graó.
  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 2, 183-209.
  • Troen, V. y Boles, K. C. (2005). How merit pay squelches teaching. Boston Globe, 28.
  • Zafra, I. (2006, 5 de junio). El sueldo de un profesor universitario puede variar 10000 euros según la comunidad. El País, p. 32.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet