Quality standards implementation in maritime education and training institutions: fuzzy assessment

• Autorzy: Tuljak-Suban D.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Standardy realizacji jakości w edukacji morskiej i instytucjach szkoleniowych: ocena rozmyta

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Efficient organization of maritime industry is based on adequate human resources. Knowledge and skills are the results of a well organized study process and training. Since education is part of the public administration, the European Quality Management tool for the Public Sector - Common Assessment Framework (CAF) could be used, in accordance with the STCW convention requirements as a starting point to develop a model that allows quantitative assessment of the Maritime Education and Training (MET) institutions. Evaluation results and procedures are usually described qualitatively as verbal assessments that are part of a report or are summarized in statistical reports. Fuzzy reasoning permits a transition from qualitative to quantitative decision making. For this purpose, we suggest fuzzy modelling, which gives a quantitative assessment of education effectiveness. Evaluators‟ verbal assessments could be linguistic input variables of a fuzzy decision model, based on CAF recommendations and STCW convention that produces a quantitative mark of the Maritime Education and Training Institution quality

PL

Wydajna organizacja przemysłu morskiego jest oparta na odpowiednich zasobach ludzkich. Wiedza i umiejętności są rezultatem dobrze zorganizowanego procesu nauczania oraz szkolenia. Od kiedy edukacja jest częścią administracji publicznej, narzędzie Europejskiego Zarządzania Jakością dla sektoru publicznego Powszechne Oszacowanie Struktury (CAF) może zostać użyte zgodnie z wymaganiami konwencji STCW jako punkt początkowy rozwoju modelu, który pozwoli na ocenę ilościową instytucji Morskiej Edukacji i Szkolenia (MET). Ocena rezultatów i procedur jest zwykle opisywana jakościowo jako ocena słowna, SA to części raportu lub są sumowane w raporty statystyczne. Rozmyta argumentacja zezwala na przekształcenie podejmowania decyzji jakościowych w ilościowe. Do tego celu sugerujemy modelowanie rozmyte, które daje ilościową ocenę efektywności edukacji. Ewaluatory słownej oceny mogą być lingwistycznymi zmiennymi wejściowymi dla rozmytego modelu decyzyjnego, opartymi na zaleceniach CAF i jakości instytucji szkoleniowych.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

MET institutions; quality; assessment; fuzzy assessment; CAF 2006

PL

jakość; oszacowanie; rozmyte oceny; CAF 2006

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Transport Problems
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: T. 8, z. 2
• Strony: 63--72
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 25 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Tuljak-Suban D.

• University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport Pot Pomorscakov 4, 6320 Portoroz, Slovenia

Bibliografia

• 1. Aas, G.H. & Askling, B. & Dittrich, K. & Froestad,W. & Haug, P. & Hofgaard Lycke, K. & Moitus, S. & Pyykkö, R. & Sørskår, A.K. Assessing educational quality: Knowledge production and the role of experts. ENQA workshop report 6. 2009. Available at: http://www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso
• 2. Chung-Hsing, Y. & Hepu, D. & Yu-Hern, C. Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies. European Journal of Operational Research. 2000. Vol. 126. No. 3. P. 459-473.
• 3. Common Assessment Framework (CAF). Improving an organization through self-assessment. CAF 2006/CAF. Resource Centre. European Institute of Public Administration. 2006.
• 4. Common Assessment Framework forms and guidance. Available at: http://www.richmond.gov.uk/ home/council_government_and_democracy/council/partnerships/integrated_working/caf/caf_information_for_practitioners/caf_forms_and_guidance.htm
• 5. Easton, C. & Gee, G. & Durbin, B. & Teeman, D. Early Intervention, using the CAF process, and its cost effectiveness. National Foundation for Educational Research. 2011.
• 6. EIPA European Institute of Public Administration. Available at: http://www.eipa.eu/
• 7. Finnish National Board of Education: Models of self-evaluation. 2010. Available at: http://www.oph.fi
• 8. FuzzyTECH 6.00d Professional Eition User’s Manual. INFORM. 2012.
• 9. Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport. Available at: http://www.fpp.uni-lj.si/
• 10. Hwang, C.L. & Yoon, K. Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Application. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 1981.
• 11. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers with Code as amended. International Maritime Organization. London. 2010.
• 12. Ji-Feng, D. & Gin-Shuh, L. Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances for liner shipping. Information Sciences. 16 June 2005. Vol. 173. No. 1-3. P. 197-225.
• 13. Kohuetek, J. Implementation of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Central and East-European Countries – Agenda Ahead. UNESCO-CEPES Studies on Higher Education. Bucharest. 2009. Available at: unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0018/001886/188647e.pdf
• 14. Kovač, P. Quality Management in Slovene Public Administration: From ISO to CAF and Forward. In: 3rd International Conference of the Central and Eastern European Countries. Bratislava. 2003.
• 15. Liu B. Theory and Practice of Uncertain Programming. 3rd edition. UTLAB. 2009. Available at: http://orsc.edu.cn/liu/up.pdf
• 16. Melo, L.B. & Sampaio, M.I.C. Quality Measures for Academic Libraries and Information Services: Two Implementation Initiatives - Mixed-model CAF-BSC-AHP and PAQ-SIBi-USP. In: IATUL Annual Conference Proceedings. 2006. Vol. 16. P. 107-114.
• 17. Murias P.& de Miguel J.C. & Rodríguez, D.A. Composite Indicator for University Quality Assessment: The Case of Spanish Higher Education System. Social Indicators Research. Vol. 89. No. 1. 2008. P. 129-146.
• 18. Quality Evaluation Model of Educational Projects. Education Quality Evaluation of Long-life Learning (EQVALL). Available at: http://www.ctt.uni.lodz.pl/
• 19. Tsinidou, M. &, Gerogiannis, V. & Fitsilis, P. Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: an empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education. 2010. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 227-244.
• 20. Tuljak Suban D. Optimization of the ordering cycle of perishable goods by choosing the appropriate fuzzy deterioration rate and travel length. Actual problems of logistics. Gliwice: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej. 2012. P. 129-152.
• 21. Uğur, E. & Efendi, N. & Mefharet Ö, & Ümit, K. Minimization of Fuel Consumption in City Bus Transportation: A Case Study for Izmir. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012. Vol. 54. P. 231-239.
• 22. Vincke P. Multicriteria Decision Aid. New York: John Wiley. 1992.
• 23. Wang, W. & Poh, K.L. Fuzzy MCDM based on confidence analysis. Fuzzy Economic Review. 2003. Vol. VIII (2). P. 25-28.
• 24. Šošić, I. Obrazovan i kreativan pomorski časnik – konkurentan na međunarodnom tržištu rada. Naše more. 2011. Vol. 58. No. 5-6. P. 193-200. [In Croatian: Educated and creative naval officer - competitive in the international labor market. Our sea. 2011. Vol. 58. No. 5-6. P. 193-200.]
• 25. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965. Vol. 8. P. 338-353.