A Comparative Analysis of the Institutional Quality Evaluation Processes in Turkish, European, and American Higher Education Systems

Abstract

Changing economic, cultural, political, and social conditions worldwide have a big impact on higher education. Under the influence of changing conditions, the functional scope of higher education institutions has expanded and new functions have been added. In addition to these changes, the demand for higher education institutions is increasing day by day in terms of education, research, and service to society. The expanding functions of higher education and its deepening impact on society call for quality activities of higher education institutions. Therefore, institutional quality evaluation processes are carried out in higher education institutions. This study aims to analyze and compare institutional quality evaluation processes applied in Turkish, European, and American higher education systems. The findings obtained are important as they will contribute to the Higher Education Quality Council of Türkiye, quality commissions in higher education institutions, and other researchers who will conduct scientific studies on this subject. It is a descriptive and qualitative study whose sample consists of institutional quality evaluation agencies from Türkiye, England, Norway, Finland, and the United States of America. The data in the study were collected and analyzed by applying the document analysis method. The findings indicate that institutional external evaluation or audit models are used in Türkiye, England, Norway, and Finland while an institutional accreditation system is used in the USA. Although the quality evaluation processes applied are generally similar in terms of basic objectives, assessed dimensions, assessment approach, people involved in the implementation of the assessment, and assessment type, there are differences in aspects such as the management, coordination, and recognition practices of the countries’ higher education systems. Taking into account national circumstances, the institutional quality evaluation processes in the Turkish higher education system should be organized and implemented in a systematic way to ensure quality higher educational practice.

Keywords

• Higher education
• higher education evaluation
• institutional quality evaluation

Türk, Avrupa ve Amerika Yükseköğretim Sistemlerinde Uygulanan Kurumsal Kalite Değerlendirme Süreçlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Abstract

Dünyada değişen ekonomik, kültürel, politik ve toplumsal koşullar diğer alanları etkilediği gibi yükseköğretim alanını da etkilemektedir. Değişen koşulların etkisiyle yükseköğretim kurumlarının işlevlerinin kapsamı hem genişlemiş hem de bunlara yenileri eklenmiştir. Bu değişikliklerin yanı sıra yükseköğretim kurumlarına olan talep eğitim, araştırma ve topluma hizmet boyutlarında her geçen gün artmaktadır. Yükseköğretim alanında yaşanan büyüme ve yükseköğretim kurumlarının toplum üzerindeki etkisinin derinleşmesi, yükseköğretim kurumlarının faaliyetlerinin niteliğine ilişkin sorgulamalar yapılmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, yükseköğretim kurumlarında kurumsal kalite değerlendirme süreçleri yürütülmektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, Türk, Avrupa ve Amerika yükseköğretim sistemlerinde uygulanan kurumsal kalite değerlendirme süreçlerinin yapısal analizi ve karşılaştırılmasıdır. Araştırmanın bulguları, ülkemizde Yükseköğretim Kalite Kuruluna, yükseköğretim kurumlarındaki kalite komisyonlarına ve benzer bir konuda bilimsel çalışma yapacak olan diğer araştırmacılara katkı sağlayacağından önemlidir. Araştırma betimsel modeldedir ve nitel yöntem kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Türkiye, İngiltere, Norveç, Finlandiya ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin kurumsal kalite değerlendirme kuruluşları oluşturmaktadır. Veriler doküman incelemesi yöntemiyle toplanmış ve doküman analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgulara göre Türkiye, İngiltere, Norveç, Finlandiya’da kurumsal dış değerlendirme ya da denetim modelleri kullanılırken, Amerika’da kurumsal akreditasyon sistemi kullanılmaktadır. Tüm ülkelerde uygulanan kalite değerlendirme süreçlerinin temel amaçlar, değerlendirilen boyutlar, değerlendirme yaklaşımı, değerlendirme sürecinde görev alan kişiler ve değerlendirme türü bakımından genel olarak benzerlik gösterdiği ancak, ülkelerin yükseköğretim sistemlerindeki yönetim, koordinasyon ve tanınma uygulamalarına göre farklılıklar olduğu belirlenmiştir. Türk yükseköğretim sisteminde kurumsal kalite değerlendirme süreçlerinin nitelikli bir şekilde yürütülebilmesi için, ulusal koşullar göz önünde bulundurularak sistemli bir şekilde düzenlenmeli ve uygulanmalıdır.

Keywords

• Kurumsal kalite değerlendirme
• yükseköğretim
• yükseköğretimde değerlendirme

References

1. Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff’s best. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Akbulut Yıldırmış, M., & Seggie, F. N. (2018). The development of higher education studies as an academic field: A literature review at international and national levels. [Article in Turkish] Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 8(3), 357–367.
3. AKKORK (2020). What is the difference between audit, accreditation, and quality evaluation in the education system? Retrieved from http://akkork.ru/e/faq/index.php?id_8=40 (June 17, 2020).
4. Apple, M. W. (2017). Eğitim toplumu değiştirebilir mi? (Ş. Çınkır, Çev.). Ankara: Anı.
5. Ayten, A. M. (2016). Strategic sustainable site management in higher education institutions. [Article in Turkish] Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 6(3), 142–154. Bağmen Kaya, A. (2019). Küreselleşme çağında yükseköğretimin yeniden yapılandırılması. In C. Celep (Ed.), Karşılaştırmalı eğitim yönetimi (pp. 133–166). İstanbul: Hiperyayın.
6. Barnett, R. (1992). The idea of quality: Voicing the educational. Higher Education Quarterly, 46(1), 3–19.
7. Barnett, R. (2004). The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia. London Review of Education, 2(1), 61–73.
8. Billing, D. (2004). International comparisons and trends in external quality assurance of higher education: Commonality or diversity? Higher Education, 47, 113–137.

9. Billing, D., & Thomas, H. (2000). The international transferability of quality assessment systems for higher education: The Turkish experience. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 31–40.
10. Billington, R. (2011). Felsefeyi yaşamak (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
11. Bingham, R., & Ottewill, R. (2001). Whatever happened to peer review? Revitalising the contribution of tutors to course evaluation. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(1), 32–39.
12. Bloxham, S., Hudson, J., Outer, B., & Price, M. (2015). External peer review of assessment: An effective approach to verifying standards? Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1069–1082.
13. Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
14. Booth, S., Beckett, J., & Saunders, C. (2015). Peer review of assessment network: Supporting comparability of standards. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(2), 194–210.
15. Bowen, G. A. (2009), Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
16. Boyle, P., & Bowden, J. A. (1997). Educational quality assurance in universities: An enhanced model. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), 111–121.
17. Bucata, G., & Rizescu, M. A. (2019). Improving the quality and efficiency of higher education systems based on the knowledge-management approach. International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, 25(1), 199–205.
18. Chapman, A. (2017). Using the assessment process to overcome imposter syndrome in mature students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(2), 112–119.
19. Coates, H. (2006). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25–36.
20. Çetinsaya, G. (2014). Büyüme, kalite, uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için bir yol haritası. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
21. Daniel, H. D., Mittag, S., & Bornmann, L. (2007). The potential and problems of peer evaluation in higher education and research. In A. Cavalli (Ed.), Quality assessment for higher education in Europe (pp. 71–82). London: Portland Press.
22. Davis, D. F. (1990). Do you want a performance audit or a program evaluation? Public Administration Review, 50(1), 35–41.
23. Deveci, N. K. (2012). Türk yükseköğretiminde eğitim-öğretim hizmetlerinin kalite düzeyinin ve kalite yükseltme çalışmalarının incelenmesi: Türkiye’deki devlet ve vakıf üniversiteleri üzerinde bir saha çalışması. Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
24. DQB (2022). Assessments. Retrieved from https://dqbengland.org.uk/assessments/ (August 13, 2022).
25. Eaton, J. S. (2015). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Retrieved from https://www.chea.org/overview-us-accreditation (February 8, 2020).
26. Eaton, J. S. (2016). Accreditation and recognition in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.chea.org/accreditation-recognition-united-states (February 8, 2020).
27. El-Khawas, E., DePietro-Jurand, R., & Holm-Nielsen, L. (1998). Quality assurance in higher education: Recent progress; Challenges ahead. The UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education: Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century, October 5–9, 1998, Paris, France.
28. Eroğlu, E. (2004). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi. Ankara: Nobel.
29. ESG (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. Brussels, Belgium.
30. FINEEC (2019). Audit manual for higher education institutions 2019-2024. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FINEEC_Audit-manual-for-higher-education-institutions_2019-2024_FINAL.pdf (October 1, 2020).
31. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approches and practical guidelines. Boston: Pearson.
32. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
33. Freire, P. (1996). Letters to Cristina. New York, NY: Routledge.
34. Gürbüz, E., & Ergülen, A. (2008). Yükseköğretim kurumlarında hizmet kalitesi ölçü ve modelleri. Ankara: Detay.
35. Hamutoğlu, N. B., Ünveren-Bilgiç, E. N., & Elmas, M. (2020). Quality processes in higher education: A comparative study of countries according to human development index reports. [Article in Turkish] Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(1), 112–124.
36. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.
37. Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.
38. Havens, H. S. (1980). Audit and evaluation: Is there a difference? Atlanta Chapter Association of Government Accountants. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/113596.pdf (April 20, 2020).
39. Kalaycı, N. (2008). “TQM center” and “curriculum” that have been neglected during the application process of TQM in higher education. [Article in Turkish] Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 163–188.
40. Kalaycı, N. (2009). Methods used in the evaluation process of faculty members’ teaching performance in higher education institutions. [Article in Turkish] Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(4), 625–656.
41. Kumar, R. (2011). Araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Edge Akademi.
42. Langfeldt, L., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., Westerheijden, D., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Evaluation of NOKUT: The Norwegian agency for quality assurance in education. Retrieved from https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/External-review-report-of-NOKUT-February-2008.pdf (January 16, 2020).
43. Langfeldt, L., Stensaker, B., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. (2009). The role of peer review in Norwegian quality assurance: Potential consequences for excellence and diversity. Higher Education, 59, 391–405.
44. Loukkola, T., Vinther-Jørgensen, T., Pol, M., & Treml, B. (2017). ENQA agency review: Finnish education evaluation center (FINEEC). Retrieved from https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FINEEC-Review-Report_FINAL.pdf (January 18, 2020)
45. Martin, M., & Stella, A. (2007). External quality assurance: Options for higher education managers: IIEP training modules. Paris: UNESCO IIEP.
46. Merabishvili, N., Tsereteli, M., & Espineira Bellon, E. M. (2017). Should the students be engaged in the higher education quality assurance? Perspectives of students and quality assurance department. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences, 7, 52–62.
47. NOKUT (2017). ENQA review of NOKUT: Self-assessment report. Retrieved from https://www.nokut.no/contentassets/02c019a4a8 824e5db0d5c34fc5523122/nokuts_self-assessment_report_2017.pdf
48. Pierre, J., Peters, B. G., & Fine Licht, J. (2018). Is auditing the new evaluation? Can it be? Should it be? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(4), 726–739.
49. QAA (2019). Quality and standards review for providers registered with the office for students: Guidance for providers. Retrieved from https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/quality-and-standards-review-for-registered-providers-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=4ccdc281_20 (October 1, 2020).
50. QS (2019). World university rankings. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019 (April 4, 2020).
51. Reddy, S. (2017). Program evaluation vs. performance audit. Retrieved from https://www.drsandeepreddy.com/blog/program-evaluation-vs-performance-audit (April 4, 2020).
52. Regulation on Higher Education Quality Assurance and the Higher Education Quality Council (2018). Official Gazette, 30604, 23 November 2018.
53. Stensaker, B., Langfeldt, L., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. (2011) An in-depth study on the impact of external quality assurance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 465–478.
54. Stockmann, R., & Meyer, W. (2016). The future of evaluation: Global trends, new challenges, shared perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
55. Szymenderski, P., Yagudina, L., & Burenkova, O. (2015). The impact of an assurance system on the quality of teaching and learning: Using the example of a university in Russia and one of the universities in Germany. Higher Education Studies, 5(5), 15–25.
56. THE (2019). World university rankings. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-universityrankings/2019/worldranking#!/page/3/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/sta (April 21, 2020).
57. THEQC (2019). YÖKAK stratejik plan 2019–2023. Retrieved from https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/sp/Yokak_2019_2023_Stratejik_Plan.pdf (May 20, 2020).
58. THEQC (2020). Yükseköğretim kalite güvencesi. Retrieved from https://www.yokak.gov.tr/hakkinda/yuksekogretim-kalite-guvencesi (May 20, 2020)
59. THEQC (2021). Institutional external evaluation, accreditation and monitoring programs guide. Retrieved from https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/Site_degerlendirme_prog_doc/KDDAI_Kilavuzu_Eng.pdf (August 6, 2022).
60. THEQC (2022). Institutional external evaluation and accreditation criteria: Version 3.0. Retrieved from https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/KidrKlavuz1.4/INSTITUTIONAL_EXTERNAL_EVALUATION_AND_ACCREDITATION_CRITERIAv3.pdf (August 6, 2022).
61. Twycross, A., & Shorten, A. (2014). Service evaluation, audit and research: What is the difference? Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(3), 65–66.
62. URAP (2019). World ranking. Retrieved from https://www.urapcenter.org/Rankings/2019-2020/world-2019 (May 24, 2020).
63. Vlasceanu, L., Grünberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic terms and definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
64. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
65. Yingqiang, Z., & Yongjian, S. (2016). Quality assurance in higher education: Reflection, criticism, and change. Chinese Education & Society, 49, 7–19.