Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Science in the Era of Globalization‖ (May 22-24, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. - Zurich, Switzerland, 2026. - 353 p.

197 The answers to all questions of the questionnaire are conditionally evaluated on the Likert scale in 0–5–10–15–20 points, respectively, allowing their summation in order to distinguish the levels of formation of the studied phenomenon on the basis of establishing an integral indicator (Ferrando, Morales-Vives, Casas & Muñiz, 2025). An exemplary degree of manifestation of the university professor's communicativeness is recorded if the average score reaches 81 and above, a high level is stated in the range of 61–80 points, an average level is established when receiving an integral indicator in the range of 41–60 points, a low level is established within 21–40 points, and indicators ≤ 20 points are characterized by recognition of a very low degree of manifestation of the university professor's communicativeness in the process of teaching academic disciplines. REFERENCES: 1. Chen, C.-F., & Chen, C.-T. (2014). The effect of higher education brand images on satisfaction and lifetime value from students‘ viewpoint. Anthropologist, 17(1), 137–145. 2. Ferrando, P. J., Morales-Vives, F., Casas, J. M. & Muñiz, J. (2025). Likert scales: A practical guide to design, construction and use. Psicothema , 37(4), 1– 15. DOI: https:/ / doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.24 3. Gołata, K., & Sojkin, B. (2020). Determinants of building image and reputation of university towards its stakeholders. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 35(1), 29–56. 4. Manhas, P. S. (2012). Role of online education in building brand image of educational institutions. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 17(32), 75–85. 5. Verbovskyi, I., Нrechanovska, O., Yunyk, I., Bilozerska, S., Ivanchenko, D. (2026). Using educational analytics for adaptive management of academic processes in universities. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research , 13, 2, 66 – 74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v13i2.8569