MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION TO PROMOTE GOOD LEARNING

Аннотация

The thesis is devoted to the study of the problem of assessing the quality of higher education. Its reasons are associated both with the ambiguity of understanding the concept of quality and with the variability of the meaning of the concept of higher education, primarily its ambiguous connection with obtaining high-quality professional education. The analysis methodology includes both reliance on the provisions of modern economic theory and the results of social psychology and appraisal theory, thereby acquiring a largely interdisciplinary character. Based on the mentioned provisions and approaches, it is shown that the concept of quality has at least four meanings, and the concept of higher education - three, while the current regulatory documents donot fullyreflect them. Kеywоrds:Quality management, quality of higher education, higher education services, trust good, assessment ofhigher education. INTRОDUСTIОN:Decisions made by people and influencing both themselves and other people are based on the knowledge, ideas and beliefs that decision makers (DMs) possess. This knowledge, ideas and beliefs can be both true and false, both scientific and unscientific, but they determine what courses of action people choose. Of course, knowledge and beliefs do not remain unchanged: decision makers learn, and often not only from their own mistakes, they communicate with each other and see the actions of others, including the consequences of these actions. MАTЕRIАLS АND MЕTHОDS:Understanding each other in the course of communication presupposes the coincidence (or at least similarity) of the meanings of the words used, and yet very often under the same word people understand different things, associate different meanings and meanings with the same words. In the process of direct (horizontal) communication, people have the opportunity to ask the interlocutor what he understands by this or that word, and this leads (more precisely, can lead) to a consensus on the meaning and a clear understanding of the meaning of what was said. In the process of one-way (vertical, indirect) communication, the recipient of the message does not have the opportunity to ask the sender what he means by this or that word. Accordingly, the recipient can only interpret the content of the perceived words, try to reconstruct their meaning from the context, or “simply” understand them as he is used to, as healways understood thesewords before perceiving this message. RЕSULTS АND DISСUSSIОN:Vertical downward communication is a typical form of information transfer in organizations, when DMs extend their decisions to subordinates, expecting their implementation. However, if the decisions are of a qualitative nature, i.e. describe in words what and how subordinates should do, the problem of consensus on the meanings of words can become an important obstacle to the implementation of such decisions. Thus, in relation to norms of law that are of a verbal nature, there is a special area in jurisprudence that studiestheproblems ofinterpretation oflaw. The prevalence of the technique of creating strategic ambiguity in the sphere of public administration (at least within the executive branch) is significantly lower, and if used, it is usually only during the period of significant changes. After all, the multi-level hierarchical structure of the relevant organizations in the absence of clear criteria for the success of activities does not at all encourage managers at different levels to encourage initiatives and experiments 11 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS www.wordlyknowledge.uz Volume: 3, Issue: 2, 2024 among subordinates. However, in fact, strategic ambiguity may well be unintentionally created in the processes of interaction between the legislative and executive branches, where the former makes policy decisions, whilethelatter iscalled uponto implement them [2]. For political decisions of a strategic nature, ensuring unambiguous understanding of them by grassroots performers is especially difficult. Here, between the subject of decisions and the immediate executors, there are a large number of hierarchy levels, at each of which there are managers who are deprived of the opportunity to directly clarify with the subject of the decision (politician) what he meant by this or that word in his speech, message, decree, etc. “Intermediate” managers are forced to interpret, reconstruct, or “simply” out of habit understand the meaning of the statements of the subject of the decision. The likelihood of an error in such situations increases significantly, especially since the feedback through the created actual results of the implementation of a political strategic decision can drag on for many years, so that the subject of the decision himself may forget what he had in mind. The likelihood of misunderstanding and error also increases if the words used in a strategic message initially have many different meanings and meanings and donot have an unambi