Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions

GOK, ENES

Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions

Enes GÖK (Assist. Prof. Dr., Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize-Turkey,)

Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi

2 2

Yıl: 2017 Cilt: 23 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 623 - 674 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions

Öz:

Türk Eğitim Sistemi, son on beş yıl içinde radikal değişiklikler ve bu değişikliklerle ilgili bazı sorunlarla karşılaşmıştır. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye'deki öğretmen yetiştirme sistemi temel öğretmen sağlayıcı rolünden dolayı büyük ilgi görmektedir. Özellikle, öğretmenlerin kalitesi ve öğretmen yetiştirmeye yönelik kullanılan programlar sorgulanmaktadır. "Kalite" tanımı üzerinde fikir birliğinin olmaması bu sorunların çözümündeki en büyük engeli oluşturmakta olup, genel araştırma tasarımının amacı farklı bakış açılarını bir araya getirmek ve her birini Öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının kalitesiyle ilişkili olarak ayrı ayrı incelemektir. Zaman kısıtlılığı nedeniyle bu çalışma sadece temel akademik paydaşların akademik kaliteye ilişkin saklı algılarını incelemektedir. Çalışmaya 31 akademik yönetici, 80 öğretim üyesi ve 569 öğrenci katılmış ve katılımcılara bir anket uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada nicel araştırma yöntemi tercih edilmiş ve verilerin analizi için Long ve Freese (2006) tarafından ele alınan Multinomial Probit ve Ordered Probit regresyon modelleri kullanılmıştır. Harvey ve Green tipolojisi (1993) kullanılarak bir paydaş modeli oluşturulmuş ve kaliteye ilişkin bakış açıları paydaş gruplarla ilişkilendirilmiş üç genel kalite görüşü altında sınıflandırılmıştır: Kamu Görüşü, Yönetim Görüşü ve Akademik Görüş. Birinci aşamadaki bulgulara göre, temel akademik paydaşlar genel olarak bu üç bakış açısının önemini yüksek oranlarla kabul etmesine karşın, 75%'lik kesim bir numaralı tercihlerinde 'Akademik Görüş'ü en önemli bakış açısı olarak değerlendirmiştir. Hem yöneticiler ve öğrenciler arasında hem de öğretim üyeleri ve öğrenciler arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. İkinci aşamada ise katılımcıların akademik pozisyonları -akademik yönetici, öğretim üyesi, öğrenci- ve akademik kalitenin üç öğesi Öğrenci Kalitesi, Öğretim Üyesi Kalitesi ve Müfredat Kalitesi- arasında istatiksel olarak bazı anlamlı ilişkilerin olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca araştırmanın bulgularına göre, katılımcıların akademik pozisyonları ile akademik kalitenin üç öğesi içinden bir numaralı tercihleri arasında anlamlı ilişkiler vardır

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Öğretmen Yetiştirmede Kalite Tanımlama: Türk Kamu Yükseköğretim Kurumlarından Dersler

Öz:

The Turkish education system has confronted radical changes over the last fifteen years, as well as problems associated with it. In this context, the Turkish teacher education system attracts a lot of attention due to its role as the main teacher provider. Specifically, the quality of the teachers and the programs used to train them are being questioned. The biggest barrier to resolve these questions is a lack of consensus on the definition of "quality," and the purpose of the general research design is to bring together various perspectives and examine them individually in relation to the quality of Teacher Education Programs (TEPs). Due to time limitations, this study examines only the embedded perceptions of key academic stakeholders regarding academic quality. A survey was administered to 31 academic administrators, 80 faculty members and 569 students. The research method is quantitative, and uses the Multinomial Probit and Ordered Probit models discussed by Long and Freese (2006) for analysis. Using Harvey and Green typology (1993), a stakeholder model was created, and perspectives on quality were categorized into three general quality views associated with stakeholder groups: the Public View, the Management View and the Academic View. In phase 1, findings revealed that while key academic stakeholders generally agreed on the importance of these three perspectives with high ratings, on their number one choice 75% considered the Academic View the most important. There was no significant difference between administrators and students, or between faculty and students. Phase 2 revealed some statistically significant relationships between the participants' academic positions -academic administrator, faculty member or student- and their level of agreement with the three academic quality components: Student Quality, Faculty Quality, and Curriculum Quality. Findings also revealed some significant relationships between participants’ academic positions and their number one choice among the three academic quality components

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

Barro, R. J. (2001). Human capital and growth. The American economic review, 91(2), 12-17. doi: 10.1257/aer.91.2.12
Barnett, R. (1988). Entry and exit performance indicators for higher Education: Some policy and research issues. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 13(1), 16-30.
Bergquist, W. H. (1995). Quality through access, access with quality: the new imperative for higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: improving policy, enhancing performance. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Bogue, E. G., & Saunders, R. L. (1992). The evidence for quality: strengthening the tests of academic and administrative effectiveness. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J.. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
Campbell, C., & Rozsnyai, C. (2002). Quality assurance and development of course programmes. Bucharest, UNESCO.: Papers on Higher Education Regional University Network on Governance and Management of Higher Education in South East Europe.
Crosier, D., Purser, L. & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V – Universities shaping the European higher education area. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.
Goodlad, J. I. (1991). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Kohoutek, J., Pasackova, E., & Rendlova, H. (2009). Developing higher education quality assurance in central and eastern Europe: Practising the science of muddling through. In J. Kohoutek (Ed.), Implementation of the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in higher education in the central and east-European countries – Agenda ahead (pp. 277). Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, Tex: StataCorp LP.
Meraler, S., & Adiguzel, A. (2012). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin yükseköğretimde kaliteye ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(9), 123-144.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Moore, A. J. (1987). Selecting outstanding faculty: Indicators of quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 43-47. doi: 10.1177/002248718703800108
Murray, F. B. (2001). The overreliance of accreditors on consensus standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 211-222. doi: 10.1177/0022487101052003004
OSYM (2010). Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi [Measurement, Selection and Placement Center]. Turkey.
Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. New York: Quill/William Morrow.
Ruben, B. D. (1995). Defining and assessing quality in higher education: Beyond TQM. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Quality in higher education (pp. 157). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Stevens, P., & Weale, M. (2003). “Education and economic growth.” In Johnes, G. & Johnes, J. (eds.): International handbook on the economics of education, pp. 164-188. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Tang, C.W., & Wu, C. T. (2010). Obtaining a picture of undergraduate education quality: a voice from inside the university. Higher Education, 60(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9299-5
Theall, M. (2002). Evaluation and assessment: An institutional context. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to academic leadership (pp. 225-240). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Volkwein, J. F. (1986). Campus autonomy and its relationship to measur es of university quality. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(5), 510-528. Watts, D. (1984). Teacher educators should be certified. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 30-33. doi: 10.1177/002248718403500109
Westerheijden, D. F. (2007). States and europe and quality of higher education. In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (Vol. 20, pp. 73-95). Dordrecht: Springer.
Winn, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1998). Organizational quality: An examination of the Malcolm Baldrige national quality framework. Research in Higher Education, 39(5), 491-512. doi: 10.1023/A:1018745505108
Young, B. J. (1995). Career plans and work perceptions of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 281-292. doi: 10.1016/0742- 051X(94)00024-Z
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326-340. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285893

APA	GOK E (2017). Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. , 623 - 674.
Chicago	GOK ENES Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. (2017): 623 - 674.
MLA	GOK ENES Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. , 2017, ss.623 - 674.
AMA	GOK E Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. . 2017; 623 - 674.
Vancouver	GOK E Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. . 2017; 623 - 674.
IEEE	GOK E "Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions." , ss.623 - 674, 2017.
ISNAD	GOK, ENES. "Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions". (2017), 623-674.

APA	GOK E (2017). Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(4), 623 - 674.
Chicago	GOK ENES Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 23, no.4 (2017): 623 - 674.
MLA	GOK ENES Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, vol.23, no.4, 2017, ss.623 - 674.
AMA	GOK E Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 2017; 23(4): 623 - 674.
Vancouver	GOK E Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 2017; 23(4): 623 - 674.
IEEE	GOK E "Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions." Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23, ss.623 - 674, 2017.
ISNAD	GOK, ENES. "Defining Quality in Teacher Education: Initial Lessons from Turkish Public Higher Education Institutions". Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 23/4 (2017), 623-674.