Uyum ve Uygulama Arasında: Türk Yükseköğretiminde Öğretim Kalitesini Anlamak

Öz

Öğretim kalitesi, yükseköğretimde kalite güvencesi sistemlerinin temel bir bileşeni hâline gelmiştir; ancak hâlâ karmaşık ve bağlama duyarlı bir kavram olma özelliğini korumaktadır. Bu çalışma, öğretim kalitesinin Türk yükseköğretim sisteminde kurumsal aktörler tarafından nasıl yorumlandığını ve inşa edildiğini incelemektedir. Nitel araştırma desenine dayanan çalışmada, beş yıllık kurumsal akreditasyona sahip üniversitelerde görev yapan 12 kalite koordinatörüyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Veriler, tematik analiz yoluyla çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, öğretim kalitesinin resmî prosedürlere uyum, ölçülebilir performans göstergeleri ve pedagojik uygulama gibi birbiriyle zaman zaman yarışan farklı bakış açılarıyla anlaşıldığını göstermektedir. Sonuçlar ayrıca kurumsal baskıların etkisini ve kaliteye ilişkin resmî temsiller ile gündelik öğretim gerçeklikleri arasındaki süreklilik gösteren boşluğu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, öğretim kalitesinin yalnızca standartlaştırılmış mekanizmalarla değerlendirilen bir olgu olmadığını; aynı zamanda kurumsal bağlamlar içinde yorumlanan, müzakere edilen ve hayata geçirilen bir süreç olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, Türk yükseköğretimi bağlamından ampirik bir katkı sunmakta ve öğretimin pedagojik ve ilişkisel boyutlarını daha iyi yansıtan, daha kapsamlı ve bağlama duyarlı kalite güvencesi yaklaşımlarına duyulan ihtiyaca işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türk Yükseköğretimi
• Kalite Güvencesi
• Öğretim Kalitesi
• Yeni Kurumsalcılık Teorisi
• Anlamlandırma

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

1059B192200979

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul izni Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler İnsan Araştırmaları Etik Kurulu'nun 18/04/2024 tarihli ve 2024-22 numaralı kararı ile alınmıştır.

Teşekkür

Yazar, doktora sonrası araştırma sürecindeki değerli desteği, rehberliği ve teşviki için Profesör Paul Ashwin’e içten teşekkürlerini sunmaktadır.

Between Compliance and Practice: Understanding Teaching Quality in Turkish Higher Education

Öz

Teaching quality has become a central concern of quality assurance systems in higher education, yet it remains a complex and context-dependent concept. This study explores how teaching quality is interpreted and constructed by institutional actors within the Turkish higher education system. Adopting a qualitative design, the study draws on semi-structured interviews with 12 quality coordinators working at universities holding five-year institutional accreditation. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings show that teaching quality is understood through multiple and sometimes competing lenses, including compliance with formal procedures, measurable performance indicators, and pedagogical practice. They also reveal the influence of institutional pressures and a recurring gap between formal representations of quality and everyday teaching realities. These results suggest that teaching quality is not only assessed through standardized mechanisms but also interpreted, negotiated, and enacted within institutional contexts. The study contributes to the literature by offering empirical insight from the Turkish higher education context and by showing how teaching quality is shaped both by formal quality assurance structures and by local meaning-making processes. It also points to the need for more comprehensive and context-sensitive approaches to quality assurance that better capture the pedagogical and relational dimensions of teaching.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish Higher Education
• Quality Assurance
• Teaching Quality
• New Institutional Theory
• Sensemaking

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

1059B192200979

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Boğaziçi University Social and Human Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee, with the decision dated 18/04/2024 and numbered 2024-22.

Teşekkür

The author would like to express sincere gratitude to Professor Paul Ashwin for his invaluable support, guidance, and encouragement during the postdoctoral research period.

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, J. (2020). Service quality in higher education institutions: qualitative evidence from the students’ perspectives using Maslow hierarchy of needs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 12(3), 371-384.
2. Akyürek, M. İ., Göktaş, E., & Aslan, A. (2025). Exploring the Mediating Role of Lecturer Competence in the Relationship Between Service Quality and Academic Engagement in Higher Education. Journal of University Research, 8(3), 329-340.
3. Ashwin, P. (2014). Knowledge, curriculum and student understanding in higher education. Routledge.
4. Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury Academic.
5. Ashwin, P. (2022). The educational purposes of higher education: Changing discussions of the societal outcomes of educating students. Higher Education, 84(6), 1227-1244.
6. Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Keane, E., Krause, K.-L., Leibowitz, B., MacLaren, I., McArthur, J., McCune, V., & Tooher, M. (2020). Reflective teaching in higher education. Bloomsbury Academic.
7. Baldwin, G., & James, R. (2000). The market in Australian higher education and the concept of student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2), 139-148.
8. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. McGraw-Hill Education.

9. Barnett, R. (2010). Being a university. Routledge.
10. Başkır, M. B., Küçükönder, H., Çelik, N., & Güzel, M. S. (2017). Öğretim kalitesi değerlendirmesine yeni bir yaklaşım: Bartın Üniversitesi örneği. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(2).
11. Biggs, J. (2014). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach?. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73-102). Routledge.
12. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill.
13. Blackmore, J. (2009). Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: Evaluating teaching and what students want. Studies in higher education, 34(8), 857-872.
14. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
15. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597.
16. Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Open University.
17. Broadfoot, P. (1998). Records of achievement and the learning society: A tale of two discourses. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy & practice, 5(3), 447-477.
18. Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi‐models of quality in education. Quality assurance in Education, 5(1), 22-31.
19. Çakmak, M., & Kayabaşı, Y. (2023). Öğretim elemanlarinin bakiş açisindan öğretimde kalite unsuru. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(24), 6-22.
20. Çonoğlu, G., Süslü, M., Yalçınöz, N. N., & Duyar, R. (2025). Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesinde öğrenim gören öğrencilerin öğretimin kalitesi ve akreditasyon algıları: Tanımlayıcı ve ilişki arayıcı çalışma. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 15(1), 37-45.
21. Cuenin, S. (1987). The Use of Performance Indicators in Universities: An International Survey. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 11(2), 117-39.
22. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher education, 49(4), 495-533.
23. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160.
24. Elken, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). Conceptualising ‘quality work’in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 24(3), 189-202.
25. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
26. Gakhal, S. (2018). What is teaching excellence?. In Global Perspectives on Teaching Excellence (pp. 6-20). Routledge.
27. Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice. (in What is quality in higher education D. Green (Eds) Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press).
28. Gunn, A. (2018). Metrics and methodologies for measuring teaching quality in higher education: developing the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Educational Review, 70(2), 129-148.
29. Hammonds, F., Mariano, G. J., Ammons, G., & Chambers, S. (2017). Student evaluations of teaching: improving teaching quality in higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 21(1), 26-33.
30. Harrison, R., Meyer, L., Rawstorne, P., Razee, H., Chitkara, U., Mears, S., & Balasooriya, C. (2022). Evaluating and enhancing quality in higher education teaching practice: A meta-review. Studies in Higher Education, 47(1), 80-96.
31. Harvey, L. (2005). A history and critique of quality evaluation in the UK. Quality Assurance in education, 13(4), 263-276.
32. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 18(1), 9-34.
33. Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education. Open University Press.
34. Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2004). Transforming quality evaluation. Quality in higher education, 10(2), 149-165.
35. Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: Understandings, boundaries and linkages. European journal of Education, 43(4), 427-442.
36. Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–36.
37. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Springer.
38. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
40. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher education, 52(1), 1-39.
41. Marshall, S. J. (2018). Quality as sense-making. In Shaping the University of the Future: Using Technology to Catalyse Change in University Learning and Teaching (pp. 315-347). Springer.
42. Martin, M., & Stella, A. (2007). External Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Making Choices. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 85. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO.
43. McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co‐producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in higher education, 34(2), 171-183.
44. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
45. Newton, J. (2002). Barriers to effective quality management and leadership: Case study of two academic departments. Higher education, 44(2), 185-212.
46. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
47. Sackdanouvong, K. (2023). Quality of Teaching in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review: Quality of Teaching, Higher Education and Systematic Literature Review. Lao Social Science Journal, 1(2), 37-51.
48. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. Prentice Hall.
49. Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Buchanan, J., & Russell, T. (2012). Beginning teaching: Stories from the classroom. Springer Science & Business Media.
50. Sipahi Mencet, D., & Akar, N. (2022). Kalite aktörlerinin yükseköğretimde sürdürülebilir kaliteye ilişkin görüşleri üzerine bir durum çalışması. Erciyes Akademi, 36(1), 103-123.
51. Smirnova, Y., & Dos, B. (2021). The nexus of teaching, research and practice: perceptions and expectations of undergraduate education students in Southeast Turkey. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 961-979.
52. 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.
53. Stensaker, B., & Leiber, T. (2015). Assessing the organisational impact of external quality assurance: hypothesising key dimensions and mechanisms. Quality in Higher Education, 21(3), 328-342.
54. Stubbs, W. H. (1994). Quality in higher education: A funding council perspective (in What is Quality in Higher Education, Diana Green (eds), Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press).
55. Taştan, K., & Yılmaz, S. (2021). Yeni kurumsal kuram argümanlarıyla Türk yükseköğretim sisteminde kalite yönetiminin benimsenmesi üzerine teorik model çalışması. Black Sea Journal of Public and Social Science, 4(2), 79-91.
56. Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University Of California, Berkeley.
57. Trow, M. (1998). The Dearing report: A transatlantic view. Higher Education Quarterly, 52(1), 93-117.
58. Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V. (Eds.). (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st-century (pp. 5-29). London: Routledge.
59. Turkish Higher Education Quality Council (THEQC) (2025). Institutional Self Evaluation Report (ISER) Writing Guide. Retrieved from https://www.yokak.gov.tr/documents/national-doc/EN-ISER_Writing_Guide_3.2.1.pdf
60. Üstünlüoğlu, E. (2016). Perceptions versus realities: Teaching quality in higher education. Education and Science, 41(184), 235-250.
61. Üstünlüoğlu, E. (2017). Teaching quality matters in higher education: A case study from Turkey and Slovakia. Teachers and Teaching, 23(3), 367-382.
62. Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review, 59(3), 285-298.
63. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
64. Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (2007). Conclusions and further challenges. In Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (pp. 247-262). Springer.
65. Yıldırım, E. & Çakır Aydın, M., & (2025). Kurumsal İç Değerlendirme Raporları Ne Anlatıyor? Tam Akredite Üniversitelerin İçerik Analizi. Journal of University Research, 8(2), 292-305.
66. Yıldırım, K., & Aslan, A. (2021). Examination of the quality teaching in Turkish higher education based on the external evaluation reports from multiple perspectives. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(1), 102-125.
67. Yıldırım, K., & Yenipınar, Ş. (2022). Compliance with international quality standards: Evaluation of turkish higher education institutions in terms of management dimensions. Education and Science, 47(211), 223-247.
68. Yürekli Kaynardağ, A. (2019). Pedagogy in HE: Does it matter?. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 111-119.