Bir Lisanüstü Uygulamalı Dilbilim Programına Yönelik Öğrenci Memnuniyeti Araştırması

Öz

Yüksek öğrenim kurumları bilimsel araştırma, teknoloji ve sosyal ve ekonomik refaha katkıda bulunarak, sosyal dönüşüme yardımcı olarak ve bireyleri çeşitli becerilerle donatarak toplumu geliştirip ihtiyaçlarını karşılayan önemli oluşumlardır. Bu yüzden bir nevi üniversite müşterisi olan öğrencilerin memnuniyetini araştırma son derece mühimdir çünkü öğrenci fikirleri eğitim kalitesini değerlendirmede ve kurumun rekabetçi eğitim ortamında hayatta kalabilmesi için çok önemli bir ölçüttür. Var olan alan yazın çeşitli programlarda öğrenci memnuniyetini irdeleyen pek çok çalışmayı özetlemektedir. Ancak bu alan yazında lisansüstü uygulamalı dilbilimi programlarına yönelik memnuniyet çalışmaları eksiktir. Bu yüzden mezkûr durum çalışması, Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesinin uygulamalı dilbilimi programına kayıtlı yüksek lisans ve doktora öğrencilerinin memnuniyet derecesini araştırmayı hedeflemektedir.  Bu nitel araştırma kapsamında gönüllü 13 yüksek lisans ve 6 doktora öğrencisi ile bireysel ve yarı yapılandırılmış yüz yüze mülakatlar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel içerik analizi sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, programın donanımlı öğretim kadrosu, tatmin edici hizmetler ve akademik üretimi teşvik sayesinde kaliteli yüksek eğitim sunması hasebiyle çoğunluk tarafından etkili bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak,  ölçme değerlendirme ve akademik danışmanlığın iyileştirilmeye ihtiyaç duyulan iki önemli alan olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışma sonunda program koordinatörlerine benzer programların eğitim ve hizmet kalitesini artırma konusunda öneriler verilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Lisansüstü eğitim,memnuniyet,doktora,yüksek lisans,eğitim,kalite

An Investigation of Student Satisfaction with an Applied Linguistics Graduate Programme

Öz

Universities are key institutions that serve to improve society and meet its needs by contributing to scientific research, technology, and social and economic welfare, helping social transformation, equipping individuals with versatile skills, to list but a few. Hence, it is of utmost importance to investigate students’ satisfaction level with universities, for student opinions serve as a very important criterion to evaluate education quality and help them survive in competitive education environment. The existing literature documents several studies investigating student satisfaction in a wide array of areas. Yet, it lacks studies on satisfaction with graduate education at Applied Linguistics. Thus, the current exploratory case study aims at finding out the satisfaction level of MA and PhD students enrolled at the Applied Linguistics programme of a public higher education institution in Turkey. A qualitative inquiry was conducted via individual and semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 13 MA and 6 PhD voluntary students at the programme. The findings gathered from a qualitative content analysis show that the programme was found efficient due to high education quality thanks to well-equipped teaching staff, good services, and encouragement to produce academically. Yet, assessment and evaluation and academic supervision were found as two aspects to be improved.  In the end, programme coordinators are provided ways to enhance both education and service quality of similar programmes. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• graduate education,satisfaction,PhD,MA,education,quality

Kaynakça

1. Al-Dulaimi, Z. Y. (2016). Student’s satisfaction about the level of administrative and academic performance in the faculty of administration and economy Al-Iraqıa university (a survey). Business Statistics-Economic Information, 13(27), 153-164.
2. Altaş, D. (2006). Üniversite öğrencilerinin memnuniyet araştırması. Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), 439-458.
3. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(5), 571-588. doi:10.1080/14783360601074315
4. Anderson, B., Cutrihgt, M., & Anderson, S. (2013). Academic involvement in doctoral education: Predictive value of faculty mentorship and intellectual community on doctoral education outcomes. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 195-201. doi:10.28945/1923 university education.
5. Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing 31(7), 528-540
6. Ay, G., & Koç, H. (2014). Determining the student satisfaction levels in higher education and analyzing them for certain variables an application for the students in office administration and executive assistancy program. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 122-133.
7. Aydemir, E. (2016). A new approach for ranking universities based on student satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education 6(3), 128-141. doi:10.2399/yod.16.011.
8. Batmaz, V., Öztürk, R., Vardar, Ö., Yanık, M., Yarman, S., & Yazıcı, H. (2011). A proposal from Istanbul university for a new legislation on higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 6-7. doi:10.2399/yod.11.006

9. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
10. Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Watertown, MA: Pathfinder International.
11. Bozan, M. (2012). Lisansüstü eğitimde nitelik arayışları. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 177- 187.Bright, L., & Graham, C. B. (2016). Predictors of graduate student satisfaction in public administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(1), 17-34.
12. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
13. Chumney, C. G., & Ragucci, K. R. (2006). Student satisfaction and academic performance in dual PharmD/MBA degree program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(2), 1-4.
14. Durmaz, Ş. (2011). Qafqaz Üniversite öğrencilerinin üniversitede beğendikleri yönlere ilişkin değerlendirmeleri. Journal of Qafqaz University Economics and Administration, 31, 30-36.
15. Ekinci, E., & Burgaz, B. (2007). The expectation and satisfaction levels of the students at Hacettepe University with respect to academic services. H. U. Journal of Education 33, 120-134.
16. Elo, S. & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Leading Global Nursing Research. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.x.
17. Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-11. doi:10.1300/j050v10n04_01
18. Erbay, Ş , Erdem, E , Sağlamel, H . (2014). The portrait of a good foreign language teacher: A cross-interview analysis of private language course administrators’ opinions. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 41-61.
19. Erdem, A. R. (2013). Changing roles and missions of university in information society. Journal of Higher Education 3(2), 109-120. doi:10.2399/yod.13.013
20. Erdoğan, E., & Bulut, E. (2015). Investigation of factors affect satisfaction levels of business students’. Journal of Management Economics and Business, 2(26), 151-170. doi: org/10.17130/ijmeb.2015.11.26.907
21. Erichsen, E. A., Bolliger, D. U., & Halup, C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 321-338. doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709496.
22. Ersoy, A. (2015). Investigation of PhD students’ initial qualitative research experiences via their diaries. Journal of Education and Instruction, 5(5), 549-568. doi: 10.14527/pegegog.2015.030
23. Giese, J. L. & Cote, J. A. (2002). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2000(1).
24. Giorgetti, F. M. (2014). Doktora Eğitiminin Tarihi, Felsefesi ve Ritüelleri: İstanbul Üniversitesi Örneği [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/dell/Desktop/Doktora-Eğitiminin- Tarihi-Felsefesi-ve-Ritüelleri-İstanbul-Üniversitesi-Örneği.
25. Gocer, A. (2010). A qualitative research on the teaching strategies and class applications of the high School teachers who teach English in Turkey as a foreign language. Education, 131(1), 196- 210.
26. Göksu, G. G. (2015). Yükseköğretim finansmanı kapsamında yaşanan değişimlerin ve yeniliklerin analizi. SAÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Sakarya.
27. Hahessy, S., Burke, E., Byrne, E., Farrelly, F., Kelly., M., Mooney, B., & Meskell, P. (2014). Indicators of student satisfaction in postgraduate blended learning programmes: Key messages from a survey study. The all Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 6 (3), 1941-19423.
28. Hernández, M. S. (2009). Graduates’ degree of satisfaction with the MA program in teaching English as foreign language at the university of Costa Rica. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, 10, 373-392.
29. İçli, G. (2001). Eğitim, istihdam ve teknoloji. PamukkaleÜniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9, 65- 71.
30. Jalali, A., Islam, A., & Ariffin, K. H. K. (2011). Service satisfaction: The case of a higher learning institution in Malaysia. International Education Studies, 4(1), 182-192.
31. Jonsson, A. (2014). Rubrics as a way of providing transparency in assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (7), 840-852. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.875117.
32. Kara Ö. T. (2017). Students’ satisfaction levels of Turkish teaching program and services provided in this program in Turkish teaching department at Cukurova university. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(1), 144-157.
33. Karakütük, K. (1989). Türkiye’de lisansüstü öğretim, sorunları ve çözüm önerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 505-528. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000000881.
34. Kashan, A. (2012). Measuring Student Satisfaction of Master Level Students; Evidence from University of Sargodha, Pakistan. School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal, 216-222.
35. Kaya, İ., & Engin, O. (2007). A research on measuring student satisfaction level for quality of education improving in higher education system. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 174, 106-115.
36. Koğar, H., & Sayın, A. (2014). Analysis in the accuracy of classification in students’ graduate school entrance. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 47(1), 171-186. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000001322
37. Koshkin, A. P., Rassolov, I. M., & Novikov, A. V. (2017). Monitoring social media: Students satisfaction with university administration activities. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2499-2522. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9558-x
38. Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing Management (14th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.
39. Macnamara, J. (2005). Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits and best practice methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1-34.
40. Mai, L. (2005). A comparative study between UK and US: The satisfaction satisfaction in higher Education and its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 859-878.
41. Mehdipour, Y. & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Student satisfaciton at Osmania University. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 2(6), 233-240.
42. Moses, L. W. (2008). Satisfaciton among current doctoral students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 259-268. doi:10.1177/0741932507312014
43. Mwiya, B., Bwalya, J., Siachinji, B., Sikombe, S., Chanda, H., & Chawala, M. (2017). Higher education quality and student satisfaction nexus: evidence from Zambia. Creative Education, 8(7), 1044-1068. doi:10.4236/ce.2017.87076
44. Official Gazette (1981). Higher Education Law. (1981, 6 November).http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/29816/2547+%20Yükseköğretim+Kanunu/http://www.ua.gov.tr/programlar/erasmus-programı/yükseköğretim-programı http://yok.gov.tr/en/web/uluslararasi-iliskiler/turkiye-de-yuksekogretim-sistemihttp://www.yok.gov.tr/web/uluslararasi-iliskiler/bologna-sureci-nedir
45. Official Gazette (2016, 20 April). Graduate Education Law 29690. http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/23688337/lisansustu_egitim_ve_ogretim_y%C3%B6netmeligi.pdf/8451c3e1-7975-40f1-bc81-3ca01cb288c8
46. Okumuş, A., Duygun, A. (2008). Service quality measurement on education services marketing and Relationship between perceived service quality and student satisfaction. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 17-38.
47. Oğuz, A. (2004), Bilgi çağında yükseköğretim programları. Milli eğitim dergisi, 164. Retrieved December, 22, 2017. http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/164/oguz.htm
48. Osman, A. R., Saputra, R. S., & Saha, J. (2017). Determinants of student satisfaction in the context of higher education: A complete structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(6), 1-14.
49. Ören, F. Ş., Yılmaz, T. C., & Güçlü, M. (2012). An analysis of the views of teacher candidates towards postgraduate education. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(2), 143-201.
50. Özçetin, S., & Gök, R. (2017). Akdeniz üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin hizmet kalitesi ile ilgili memnuniyet düzeylerinin ölçülmesi. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 7(1), 301-311.
51. Özdelikara, A., & Babur, S. (2016). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin öğrenimlerine ilişkin doyum düzeyi ile etkileyen faktörler. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 2-8.
52. Özmen, Z. M., & Güç, F. A. (2013). Challenges in doctoral education and coping strategies: A case study. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 3(3), 214-219. doi: 10.5961/jhes.2013.079
53. Öztemel, E. (2013). Building the culture of research and innovation in the higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education 3(1), 22-29. doi:10.2399/yod.13.006.
54. Phillips, E. M., and Pugh, D. S. (2010). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors (4t ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
55. Qu, Q. S. & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238-264. doi 10.1108/11766091111162070.
56. Queirós, A, & Faria, D. & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitave quantitative research method. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369-387. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.887089.
57. Serenko, A. (2010). Student satisfaction with Canadian music programmes: the application of the American customer satisfaction model in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(3), 1-19. doi:10.1080/02602930903337612
58. Sevinç, B. (2001). Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitim uygulamaları, sorunları ve öneriler. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 125-137. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000000052
59. Sümen, Ö., & Çağlayan K. T. (2013). Prospective teachers’ levels of satisfaction with schools of education and their idealized educational settings. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 249-272.
60. Şahin, A. E. (2009). Eğitim fakültesinde hizmet kalitesinin eğitim fakültesi öğrenci memnuniyet ölçeği (EF-ÖMÖ) ile değerlendirilmesi. H.Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 106-122.
61. Tan, K. C., & Kek, S. W. (2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach. Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 17-24. doi:10.1080/1353832242000195032
62. Tatlı, Z. H., Kokoç, M., & Karal, H. (2011). Satisfaction state of computer education and instructional Technologies students: Karadeniz Technical University case. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 836-849.
63. Tekin, T. (2007). Cumhuriyet’in 100. yılında Türk üniversitelerinden beklentiler. Ankara Üniversitesi Türk Inkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 39, 465-480. doi: 10.1501/Tite_0000000104
64. Theron, P. M., (2015). ‘Coding and data analysis during qualitative empirical research in Practical Theology’. In die Skriflig 49(3), p. 1-9. doi. org/10.4102/ids.v49i3.1880.
65. Uygur, M., & Yelken, T. Y. (2017). Analyzing the prospective primary school teachers’ satisfaction level and their perception of future expectation: Mersin University sample. Journal of Higher Education, 7(1), 1-9. doi:10.2399/yod.16.006.
66. Varış, F. (1972). Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitim “pozitif bilimlerin temel ve uygulamalı alanlarında”. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 51-74. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000000336
67. Yan, J. L. S., McCracken, N., & Crowston, K. (2014). Semi-automatic content analysis of qualitative data. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, 1128-1132. doi:10.9776/14399
68. Yılmaz, A. B., Tonga, E. S., & Çakır, H. (2017). Evaluation of graduate students’ opinions about the education they receive. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 37(1), 1-45.