Dijital Çağda Yükseköğretimde Kalite: Öğretim Süreçleri, Yapay Zekâ ve Kalite Güvencesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, yükseköğretimde öğretimin kalitesini etkileyen faktörleri belirlemek ve bunların dijitalleşme, yapay zekâ ve kalite güvencesi süreçleriyle ilişkisini ortaya koymaktır. Nitel araştırma çerçevesinde doküman analizi yapılmış ve kuramsal yaklaşımlar, raporlar, makaleler ve politika belgelerine dayalı olarak tematik analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğretim kalitesinin temel belirleyicileri olarak öğretim elemanlarının yetkinliği, müfredatın güncelliği, öğretim yöntemleri, ölçme ve değerlendirme süreçleri, kurumsal destek yapıları ve teknolojik altyapı belirlenmiştir. Dijitalleşme ve yapay zekânın öğretime entegrasyonu, kişiselleştirilmiş öğrenme ve veri temelli geribildirim bağlamında değerlendirilmiş ve kaliteyi artırmada dönüştürücü rolleri vurgulanmıştır. Ayrıca kalite güvencesinin yalnızca dış değerlendirmeye dayanmaması, iç değerlendirme, paydaş katılımı ve stratejik yönetişimle desteklenmesi gerektiği ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmada, öğretim süreçlerinin etik, dijital ve stratejik boyutlarla yeniden yapılandırılması gerektiği ve yükseköğretimde kalite anlayışının dinamik ve sürekli gelişen bir yapıya sahip olduğu vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kalite
• Yükseköğretimde kalite
• Dijitalleşme
• Yapay zekâ
• Öğretim süreçleri
• Kalite güvencesi

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu araştırma için herhangi bir dış finansman alınmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma insan veya hayvan katılımcıları içermemektedir. Tüm prosedürler bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uygun olarak gerçekleştirilmiş olup, atıfta bulunulan tüm çalışmalar uygun şekilde kaynak gösterilmiştir.

Teşekkür

Yazarlar herhangi bir kişi veya kuruma teşekkür etmek istememektedir.

Quality in Higher Education in the Digital Age: Teaching Processes, Artificial İntelligence, and Quality Assurance

Öz

The primary purpose of this study is to identify the factors affecting the quality of teaching in higher education and to reveal their relationship with digitalisation, artificial intelligence, and quality assurance processes. Within the framework of qualitative research, document analysis was conducted and thematic analysis was carried out based on theoretical approaches, reports, articles, and policy documents. The main determinants of teaching quality were identified as the competence of academic staff, the currency of curricula, teaching methods, assessment and evaluation processes, institutional support structures, and technological infrastructure. The integration of digitalisation and artificial intelligence into teaching was evaluated in the context of personalised learning and data-driven feedback, and their transformative role in enhancing quality was emphasised. In addition, it was demonstrated that quality assurance should not rely solely on external evaluation, but should also be supported by internal evaluation, stakeholder participation, and strategic governance. The study revealed that teaching processes need to be restructured with ethical, digital, and strategic dimensions, and it was emphasised that the understanding of quality in higher education has a dynamic and continuously evolving structure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quality
• Quality in higher education
• Digitalization
• Artificial intelligence
• Instructional processes
• Quality assurance

Etik Beyan

No procedures involving human participants, personal data, or experimental intervention were conducted within the scope of this study. As the study is based on secondary data/literature analysis, ethics committee approval was not required. The study has been prepared in full compliance with academic and ethical standards.

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, J. (2020). HEISQUAL: A modern approach to measure service quality in higher education institutions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, Article 100933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100933
2. Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (2016). Determinants of education quality: What makes students’ perception different? Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2016.1155167
3. Akıllı, E. (2023, September). Türkiye’de ve dünyada yükseköğrenimde uluslararasılaşma. Kriter. https://kriterdergi.com/dosya-uluslararasi-egitim/turkiyede-ve-dunyada-yuksekogrenimde-uluslararasilasma
4. Altheide, D. L., Coyle, M., DeVriese, K., & Schneider, C. J. (2008). Emergent qualitative document analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 127–151). Guilford Press.
5. Baker, R. S., Boser, U., & Snow, E. L. (2022). Learning engineering: A view on where the field is at, where it’s going, and the research needed. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000059
6. Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2016). Educational data mining and learning analytics: Potentials and possibilities for online education. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (pp. 83–98). Springer.
7. Balyer, A., Türkdoğan, M., & Özsoy, M. (2024). Küresel yükseköğretimde neler oluyor? Küreselleşme ve uluslararasılaşma üzerine bir inceleme. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 14(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1331564
8. Baraçlı, H., Alperen, Ş., & Dönmez, C. Ç. (2024). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim alanında yapılan çalışmaların uluslararasılaşma bağlamında incelenmesi: Bibliyometrik bir analiz. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(89), 282–304. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1340136

9. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
10. Cevher, E. (2015). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ve kalite algısının belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(39), 804–814.
11. Chua, C. (2004). Perception of quality in higher education. AUQA Occasional Publication.
12. Çakmak, M., & Kayabaşı, Y. (2023). Öğretim elemanlarının bakış açısından öğretimde kalite unsuru. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(24), 6–22.
13. Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398
14. Easley, E., Strawderman, L., Babski-Reeves, K., Bullington, S., & Smith, B. (2021). Perceived quality factors in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 27(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1909210
15. Elassy, N. (2015). The concepts of quality, quality assurance and quality enhancement. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(3), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-11-2012-0046
16. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). https://www.enqa.eu/esg-standards-and-guidelines-for-quality-assurance-in-the-european-higher-education-area/
17. European Commission. (March 27, 2024). Proposal for a Council recommendation on a European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education (COM(2024) 147 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52024DC0147
18. European University Association. (2025, 30 Haziran). Assuring higher education’s quality in the age of AI is no easy task [Expert voices]. https://www.eua.eu/our-work/expert-voices/assuring-higher-educations-quality-in-the-age-of-ai-is-no-easy-task.html
19. Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. Free Press.
20. Gedikoğlu, T. (2015). Liderlik ve okul yönetimi. Anı Yayıncılık.
21. Genç, N. (2012). Yönetim ve organizasyon: Çağdaş sistemler ve yaklaşımlar. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
22. Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27–50.
23. Green, D. (Ed.). (1994). What is quality in higher education? SRHE & Open University Press.
24. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
25. Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. Open University Press.
26. Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11777122
27. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462047
28. Kılınç, M. (2022). Üniversite sıralama sistemleri: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. International Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 8(48), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.865
29. Kim, J. (2018). The functions and dysfunctions of college rankings: An analysis of institutional expenditure. Research in Higher Education, 59(1), 54–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9455-1
30. Koyuncuoğlu, Ö. (2020). Yükseköğretimde kalite kültürü. International Journal of Disciplines Economics & Administrative Sciences Studies, 6(18), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.26728/ideas.283
31. Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410536431
32. Love, P. (2013). Document analysis. In P. M. Magolda & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.), Research in the college context (pp. 99–112). Routledge.
33. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). Digital education outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with AI, blockchain and robots. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/589b283f-en
35. Özer, M., Gür, B. S., & Küçükcan, T. (2010). Yükseköğretimde kalite güvencesi. SETA Yayınları.
36. Parri, J. (2006). Quality in higher education. Vadyba/Management, 2(11), 107–111.
37. Sapiano, J. (2020). High quality teaching in higher education: A challenge and a possibility. Symposia Melitensia, 16, 255–264.
38. Shindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244
39. Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540310467804
40. Şimşek, İ. E., & Yılmaz, N. (2023). Öğrenme mühendisliği. In Eğitim bilimlerinde uluslararası araştırma ve derlemeler (pp. 373–387). Serüven Yayınevi.
41. Taşcı, D., & Lapçın, H. T. (2023). Yükseköğretimde kalite güvencesi sistemi: Kurumsal akreditasyon raporları üzerinden bir değerlendirme. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1185953
42. Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011058669
43. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2023a). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers (2nd ed.). UNESCO Publishing.
44. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2023b). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing.
45. Wach, E., & Ward, R. (2013). Learning about qualitative document analysis (IDS Practice Paper in Brief). Institute of Development Studies. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/2989
46. Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1999.11780803
47. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
48. Zineldin, M., Akdağ, H. C., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.582796