İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Memnuniyetini Değerlendirmek için Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu (YÖKAK) Kriterleri ile İlişkili bir Anket Modeli Tasarlanması

Öz

Yükseköğretim, bilgi ve becerileri genişleterek, sosyal gelişimi yönlendirerek ve toplumsal sermayeye katkıda bulunarak bireyleri güçlendirir. Ancak, etkili bir altyapı oluşturmak için sağlam bir kalite güvencesi sistemi hayati önem taşır. Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu (YÖKAK), Türk yükseköğretimini uluslararası standartlarla uyumlu hale getirmeye ve öğrenci geri bildirimlerini teşvik ederek bir kalite kültürü geliştirmeye odaklanır. Anket gibi yöntemlerle öğrencilerden geri bildirim toplamak, iyileştirme alanlarını belirlemeye ve eğitimin genel kalitesini artırmaya yardımcı olabilir. Bu çalışma, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Fakültesi’nde öğrenci memnuniyetini değerlendirmek için YÖKAK kriterleri ile uyumlu bir anket modeli geliştirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu nedenle, YÖKAK’ın Eğitim ve Öğretim başlığı altında yer alan 18 alt kriterle eşleşen bir anket oluşturulmuştur. Önermelere verilen yanıtlar için beşli Likert ölçeği (1-Kesinlikle katılmıyorum, 2-Katılmıyorum, 3-Kararsızım, 4-Katılıyorum, 5-Kesinlikle katılıyorum) kullanılmıştır. Anket, Su Ürünleri Mühendisliği Programı’na kayıtlı 55 öğrenciye (%63,64 erkek ve %36,36 kadın) yüz yüze uygulanmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre öğrencilerin en çok memnun oldukları konular; ders dışı zamanlarda öğretim elemanlarına ve akademik danışmanlara rahatlıkla ulaşılabilmesi ve Su Ürünleri Mühendisliği Programını okumaktan duyulan memnuniyet olarak sıralanabilir. Öğretim planında yer alan derslerin uygulama açısından yeterli olmaması ve ders dışı faaliyetlerin (ödev, sunum vb.) yeterli ve dengeli olmaması ise memnuniyet düzeyinin düşük olduğu başlıklar olarak kaydedilmiştir. YÖKAK’ın Eğitim ve Öğretim ölçütleri bağlamında memnuniyet düzeyleri; Program Tasarımı, Değerlendirmesi ve Güncellenmesi için 3,58 puan, Programların Yürütülmesi için 3,67 puan, Öğrenme Kaynakları ve Akademik Destek Hizmetleri için 3,68 puan ve Öğretim Kadrosu için 3,95 puan ortalama memnuniyet düzeyleri kaydedildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenci anketi
• Eğitim ve öğretim
• Su ürünleri mühendisliği
• Akreditasyon

Designing a Questionnaire Model Related to the Turkish Higher Education Quality Council (THEQC) Criteria for the Student Satisfaction at the Faculty of Fisheries, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University

Abstract

Higher education empowers individuals by expanding knowledge and skills, driving social development, and contributing to societal capital. However, robust quality assurance systems are vital to ensure their impact. The Turkish Higher Education Quality Council (THEQC) focuses on aligning Turkish higher education with international standards and fostering a quality culture by promoting the collection and analysis of student feedback. Gathering feedback from students through methods like surveys can identify areas for improvement and enhance the overall quality of education. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive questionnaire model aligned with THEQC criteria to assess student satisfaction at the Faculty of Fisheries, İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University. Therefore, a survey matching 18 sub-criteria under the Learning and Teaching heading of THEQC was created in order to determine the satisfaction levels of the students of the faculty. A five-point Likert scale (1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Undecided, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly agree) was used for the responses to the propositions. The survey was applied face-to-face to 55 students (63.64% were male and 36.36% were female) enrolled in the Fisheries Engineering Program. Based on the research findings, students expressed the highest satisfaction with the accessibility of faculty and academic consultants outside of class hours and their overall satisfaction with the Fisheries Engineering program. On the other hand, the inadequacy of the courses in terms of practical application and the insufficient and unbalanced extracurricular activities (homework, presentations, etc.) have been recorded as topics with low satisfaction levels. The average satisfaction levels by THEQC’s learning and training criteria were recorded as 3.58 points for Program Design, Evaluate and Update, 3.67 points for Implementation of Programs, 3.68 points for Learning Resources and Academic Support Services, and 3.95 for Teaching Staff.

Keywords

• Student survey
• Learning and teaching
• Fisheries engineering
• Accreditation

Kaynakça

1. 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. Journal of Higher Education, 8(3): 357-367 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.18.027
2. Akyüz, K. C., Balaban, Y., & Yıldırım, İ. (2013). Classifying requirements of students of Forest Industry Engineering Department by Kano model. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 13(2): 258-267 (in Turkish).
3. El-Mowafy, A., Kuhn, M., & Snow, T. (2013). Blended learning in higher education: Current and future challenges in surveying education. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2): 132-150.
4. Eren, D., Özgül, E., & Çullu Kaygısız, N. (2013). Identificatıon of education satisfaction of undergraduate tourism students: A case of Nevşehir University. Erciyes University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 1(35): 15-27 (in Turkish).
5. Gökulu, G. (2020). Development of the educational satisfaction scale of university students studying in social sciences. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 15(23): 1790-1808. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.646548
6. Hou, A. Y. C. (2011). Quality assurance at a distance: International accreditation in Taiwan higher education. Higher Education, 61: 179-191.
7. Hunter, M. S., & White, E.R. (2004). Could fixing academic advising fix higher education? About Campus, 9(1): 20-25.
8. Isaeva, R., Eisenschmidt, R., Vanarib, K., & Kumpas-Lenkc, K. (2020). Students’ views on dialogue: improving student engagement in the quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 26(1): 80-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1729307

9. Korkmaz, M., Çoban, H. O., & Alkan, H. (2023). Evaluation of student satisfaction in higher education quality assurance system: The case of Isparta University of Applied Sciences Faculty of Forestry. Journal of Bartin Faculty of Forestry, 25(3): 479-491 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.1343638
10. Kranz, P. L., Steele, R. A., Lund, N. L., & Cook, S. B. (2004). Employment success and satisfaction among graduates of Tennessee Technological University’s master of science program in fisheries management. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2): 179-185.
11. Nulty, D. D. (2008). The Adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assesment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3): 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
12. Özcan, B., Kalaycı, N., & Li, T. (2022). A comparative analysis of the institutional quality evaluation processes in Turkish, European, and American higher education systems. Journal of Higher Education, 12(Sp): 85-98. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.816017
13. Pakiş Çetin, S., & Çevik Kaya, K. (2024). Determination of academic satisfaction and educational-instruction satisfaction levels of nursing students. Journal of Adnan Menderes University Health Sciences Faculty, 8(2): 143-156. https://doi.org/10.46237/amusbfd.1243934
14. Pelin, M., Sert, H., & Yurumez, Y. (2022). The Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey (THEQC): Evaluation processes and sharing of experience. Online Turkish Journal of Health Sciences, 7(3), 506-510. https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.1142275
15. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide. 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 352 p.
16. Salto, D. J. (2021). Beyond national regulation in higher education? Revisiting regulation and understanding organisational responses to foreign accreditation of management education programmes. Quality in Higher Education, 27(2): 206-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1833420
17. Sevim Korkut, D., Gedik, T., & Uzun, O. (2011). The perception of Forest Industry Engineering students on their education and professional future (Düzce University case). Düzce University Faculty of Forestry Journal of Forestry, 7(1): 46-55 (in Turkish).
18. Sfreddo, L. S., Vieira, G. B. B., Vidor, G., & Santos, C. H. S. (2021). ISO 9001 based quality management systems and organisational performance: a systematic literature review. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 32(3-4): 389-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1549939
19. Şimşek, H., İslim, Ö. F., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Student satisfaction as an indicator of quality in higher education: A scale development study. Trakya Journal of Education, 9(3): 380-395 (in Turkish).
20. Telli, R. (2023). Determination of efficiency based on the quality process in state research universıties in Turkey. Journal of University Research, 6(3): 327-337 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1325816
21. THEQC. (2025). Turkish Higher Education Quality Council, Introduction page. https://www.yokak.gov.tr/en/introduction (Access date: March 2025).
22. THEQC. (2024). Institutional Self-Evaluation Report Writing Guide Version 3.2. https://www.yokak.gov.tr/documents/national-doc/EN-KIDR_Hazırlama_Kılavuzu_3.2.pdf (Access date: March 2025).
23. Ukav, İ. (2017). An analysis related to students satisfaction in vocational schools: The sample of Kahta Vocational School. Mesleki Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1): 1-9 (in Turkish).
24. Uludağ, G., Bora, M., & Çatal, S. (2021). Quality assurance system in Turkish higher education and the importance of student participation. Journal of Quality and Strategy Management, 1(1): 91-111.
25. Vural Yılmaz, D. (2019). Quality assurance in Turkish higher education in the framework of policy process model. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 46: 37-60. https://doi.org/10.35237/sufesosbil.533996
26. Yeşilbaş Özenç, Y. (2024). Quality in higher education. Journal of University Research, 7(4): 498-509 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1538784