KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yükseköğretim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

Küresel Yükseköğretimde Öğrenme ve Öğretme Merkezlerinin Etkililiği: Nitel Karşılaştırmalı Analiz

Learning and Teaching Centres in Global Higher Education: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis on their Effectiveness

Asu Altunoğlu(ANADOLU UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-2649-5262
Tuğba Babacan(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9707-1029
Sayfa
261–275
Yayın Tarihi
2026-08-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda merkezlerin etkililiğini oluşturan yenilikçi öğretim, güçlü kurumsal kapasite, aktif öğrenci katılımı ve etkili kalite mekanizmaları olmak üzere dört temel koşul öne çıkmıştır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç: Yükseköğretimde nitelikli öğretime ilişkin artan baskılar sonucu birçok üniversite, Öğrenme ve Öğretme Merkezi kurmuştur.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Alanyazında yürütülen çalışmaların çoğunluğu yerel düzeyde vaka incelemesi veya betimleyici odaklı olmasıyla merkezlerin etkililiğine dair karşılaştırmalı bir perspektif sunmakta sınırlı kalmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda merkezlerin etkililiğini oluşturan yenilikçi öğretim, güçlü kurumsal kapasite, aktif öğrenci katılımı ve etkili kalite mekanizmaları olmak üzere dört temel koşul öne çıkmıştır.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Öğrenme ve Öğretme Merkezleri · Yükseköğretimde Nitelikli Öğretim · Yükseköğretimde Öğrenme

Özet

Amaç: Yükseköğretimde nitelikli öğretime ilişkin artan baskılar sonucu birçok üniversite, Öğrenme ve Öğretme Merkezi kurmuştur. Alanyazında yürütülen çalışmaların çoğunluğu yerel düzeyde vaka incelemesi veya betimleyici odaklı olmasıyla merkezlerin etkililiğine dair karşılaştırmalı bir perspektif sunmakta sınırlı kalmaktadır. Yöntem: Bu araştırma nitel karşılaştırmalı analizi benimsemekte olup çoklu durum çalışması desenindedir. Bu doğrultuda, Times Higher Education sıralamasına dayalı ve yükseköğretim bölgelerini temsilen belirlenen on üniversitedeki Öğrenme Öğretme Merkezi’nin yayınladığı açık erişimli dokümanlar incelenmiş ve nitel karşılaştırmalı analiz yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda merkezlerin etkililiğini oluşturan yenilikçi öğretim, güçlü kurumsal kapasite, aktif öğrenci katılımı ve etkili kalite mekanizmaları olmak üzere dört temel koşul öne çıkmıştır. Sonuç ve Öneriler: Merkezlerin etkililiğinde ilgili koşulların belirli uyumları ortaya çıkmış; ancak alternatif çözüm yollarına ulaşılmasına rağmen güçlü kurumsal kapasitenin kritik koşul olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, merkezlerin etkililiğini oluşturan en güçlü yapıların Kuzey Amerika ve Avrupa üniversitelerinde yoğunlaştığı, diğer bölgelerde ise tamamlayıcı mekanizmalar aracılığıyla etkililiğin sağlandığı belirlenmiştir. Farklı bağlamlara özgü karşılaştırmalı araştırmaların yapılması ve etkililiğin sürdürülebilirliği için kurumsal kapasitenin önceliklendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Abstract

Objective: Due to growing emphasis on quality teaching in higher education, universities worldwide have established Learning and Teaching Centers (LTCs). However, the literature often focuses on local-level case studies or descriptive ones, thus comparative perspective on the effectiveness of these centers remains limited. Methods: This study*, ** is designed on a qualitative comparative analysis approach and a multiple case study. Accordingly, open-access documents published by the LTCs at ten universities selected based on the Times Higher Education rankings and representing different higher education regions were examined and analyzed using qualitative comparative analysis methods. Results: The results revealed four key conditions that constitute the effectiveness of the centers: strengthened innovative pedagogies, high institutional capacity, active student engagement, and rigorous quality mechanisms. The findings demonstrate that effectiveness arises from specific alignments of these four conditions. Conclusions and Recommendations: While multiple pathways can lead to effectiveness, institutional capacity consistently emerges as a critical condition. The findings also reveal a Western dominance, with the strongest configurations observed in North American and European contexts, while alternative pathways in non-Western contexts indicate how effectiveness can also emerge through compensatory mechanisms. It is recommended that further comparative research be conducted in context-specific settings, and that institutional capacity be prioritized to ensure the sustainability.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Altunoğlu, A., Babacan, T. (2026). Küresel Yükseköğretimde Öğrenme ve Öğretme Merkezlerinin Etkililiği: Nitel Karşılaştırmalı Analiz. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 261–275. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1780470

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (58)

  1. Akınlar, A., & Kavgaoğlu, D. (2024). An investigation of teaching and learning centers of ivy league universities in terms of their contribution to quality higher education. Journal of Education for Life, 38(3), 610-625. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2024383781
  2. Altbach, P. G. (2001). The university in society. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education (pp. 11–37). Johns Hopkins University Press.
  3. Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2015). Internationalisation and global tension: Lessons from history. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19, 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314564734
  4. Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90-126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312438409
  5. Aşkun, V. (2025). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel karşılaştırmalı analiz: Vaka temelli nedensellik ve bulanık küme yaklaşımı. Pegem Akademi.
  6. Bardakçı, S. (2024). Unveiling scholarly insights: Quality assurance in open and distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(4), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i4.7678
  7. Basurto, X., & Speer, J. (2012). Structuring the calibration of qualitative data as sets for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Field Methods, 24(2), 155-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X11433998
  8. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2014, August 28-31). Selecting appropriate cases when studying causal mechanisms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, United States. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2323388
  9. Bitar, N., & Davidovich, N. (2025). From margin to center: Positioning centers for teaching and learning as strategic partners in Israeli higher education. Higher Education, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01450-y
  10. Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023-1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w
  11. Bowden, J. L. H., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2021). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: A holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1207-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647
  12. Broadfoot, P. (2009). Time for a scientific revolution? From comparative education to comparative learnology. In R. Cowen, & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (2nd ed., pp. 1249-1266). Springer.
  13. Capriotti, V., & Locatelli, A. (2024). Impacts and challenges of teaching and learning centers: A first overview. CQIIA Rivista, 42, 131-144.
  14. Chisholm, M. E. (2008). Is there a role for benchmarking in teaching and learning centres? In A. Wint, & A. Perry (Eds.), Benchmarking matters (No. 14, pp. 24-34). UWI Quality Education Forum.
  15. Çilesiz, S., & Greckhamer, T. (2020). Qualitative comparative analysis in education research: Its current status and future potential. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 332-369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907347
  16. D’Andrea, V. M., & Gosling, D. (2005). Improving teaching and learning: A whole institutional approach. Open University Press.
  17. de Vincenzi, A., Garau, A., & Guaglianone, A. (2018). Has the quality of teaching and learning processes improved as a result of the implementation of quality assurance coordinated by the state?. Quality in Higher education, 24(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2018.1426382
  18. Elçi, A., & İşeri, E. (2022). Türkiye’de öğretim elemanı mesleki gelişimi için öğrenme ve öğretme merkezleri: Yönetim ve örgüt yapısı. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 12(2), 280-295. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.734565
  19. Fischer, M., & Maggetti, M. (2017). Qualitative comparative analysis and the study of policy processes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(4), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1149281
  20. Green, A. (2003). Education, globalisation and the role of comparative research. Institute of Education.
  21. Gündoğdu, A. A., & Kırkıç, K. A. (2023, October 19-21). Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde açılmış olan öğrenme ve öğretmeyi geliştirme uygulama araştırma merkezlerinin durumu. In E. Bengü, Ş. Akşab, & F. N. Seggie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Higher Education Studies Conference (pp. 10-11). Yükseköğretim Çalışmaları Derneği (YÖÇAD). https://yocad.org.tr/assets/IHEC2023-abstracts-bildiri-ozetleri-2023.pdf#page=21
  22. Hannan, A., & Silver, H. (2000). Innovating in higher education: Teaching, learning and institutional cultures. Open University Press.
  23. Harvey, L. (2024). What have we learned from 30 years of quality in higher education: academics’ views of quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 30(3), 360-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2024.2385793
  24. Healey, M. & Healey, R. L. (2024). The role of academic developers in initiating, developing, and supporting student-staff partnerships in learning and teaching in higher education: A systematic narrative literature review and a new framework. International Journal for Academic Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2024.2338487
  25. Hellström, T. (2018). Centres of excellence and capacity building: From strategy to impact. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 543-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx082
  26. Jöns, H., & Hoyler, M. (2013). Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings. Geoforum, 46, 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.014
  27. Kamens, D. H. (2013). Globalization and the emergence of an audit culture: PISA and the search for ‘best practices’ and magic bullets. In H. D. Meyer, & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp.117-139). Syposium Books.
  28. Kloos, C., Alario-Hoyos, C., Morales, M., Rocael, H., Jerez, O., Pérez-Sanagustín, M.,. & López, A. (2021). PROF-XXI: Teaching and Learning Centers to Support the 21st Century Professor. 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council, 447-454, IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9657301
  29. Kondakçı, Y., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Social network analysis of international student mobility: Uncovering the rise of regional hubs. Higher Education, 75(3), 517-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0155-3
  30. Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2014). Growth or steady state? A bibliometric focus on international comparative higher education research. Higher Education, 67, 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9694-9
  31. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj017
  32. Marquina, M. (2025). Changing universities’ internal governance and its implications for the academic profession. In L. Leišytė, M. Marquina, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), University governance, management and the academic profession: Transformations and challenges (vol. 26, pp. 29-47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86889-4_3
  33. McCune, V. (2021). Academic identities in contemporary higher education: Sustaining identities that value teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1632826
  34. Mozin, S. Y., & Nggilu, R. (2023). Improving the quality of higher education: The role of strengthening institutional capacity in higher education transformation. Public Policy Journal, 4(2), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.37905/ppj.v4i2.2114
  35. Nam, J. K. (2020). Comparative study of teaching and learning centers in universities by country. Global Research in Higher Education, 3(4), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v3n4p13
  36. Nam, J. K., & Dipasupil, S. R. (2019). The status of teaching and learning centers in higher education: An Asian perspective. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 262-265. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.5.3.262-265
  37. OECD. (2020). Resourcing higher education: Challenges, choices and consequences. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/06/resourcing-higher-education_5eb3cee3/735e1f44-en.pdf
  38. Oliván-Blázquez, B., Aguilar-Latorre, A., Gascón-Santos, S., Gómez-Poyato, M. J., Valero-Errazu, D., Magallón-Botaya, R.,. & Porroche-Escudero, A. (2023). Comparing the use of flipped classroom in combination with problem-based learning or with case-based learning for improving academic performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221081550
  39. Park, E. S., & Xu, D. (2024). The effect of active learning professional development training on college students’ academic outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 17(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2151954
  40. Pattyn, V., Molenveld, A., & Befani, B. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis as an evaluation tool: Lessons from an application in development cooperation. American Journal of Evaluation, 40(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017710502
  41. Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Kotorov, I., Teixeira, A., Mansilla, F., Broisin, J., Alario-Hoyos, …Gonzalez Lopez, A. H. (2022). A competency framework for teaching and learning innovation centers for the 21st century: Anticipating the post-COVID-19 age. Electronics, 11(3) 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11030413
  42. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press.
  43. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
  44. Ragin, C. C. (2018). User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 3.0. University of California Press.
  45. Ribeiro-Silva, E., Amorim, C., Aparicio-Herguedas, J. L., & Batista, P. (2022). Trends of active learning in higher education and students’ well-being: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 844236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844236
  46. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Why compare? Why Configurational comparative methods? In B. Rihoux, & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp.17-25). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569
  47. Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597200
  48. Shin, J. C., Li, X., Nam, I., & Byun, B. K. (2022). Institutional autonomy and capacity of higher education governance in South Asia: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 35(2), 414-438. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00220-y
  49. Snijders, I., Wijnia, L., Kuiper, R. M., Rikers, R. M., & Loyens, S. M. (2022). Relationship quality in higher education and the interplay with student engagement and loyalty. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 425-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12455
  50. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2021). Externalisation and structural coupling: Applications in comparative policy studies in education. European Educational Research Journal, 20(6), 806-820. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1474904120988394
  51. Stenalt, M. H., Sørensen, M. T., & Lindvig, K. E. (2025). Exploring student engagement in studies into higher education interdisciplinary learning: A scoping review. Review of Education, 13(2), e70085. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70085
  52. Wang, M. (2024). Linking teaching quality to student engagement: Student-faculty interaction as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 52(6), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.13131
  53. Woelert, P. (2023). Administrative burden in higher education institutions: A conceptualisation and a research agenda. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(4), 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2190967
  54. Wright, M. C. (2023). Centers for teaching and learning: The new landscape in higher education. The John Hopkins University Press. https://lccn.loc.gov/2022049905
  55. Yang, S., Shu, D., & Yin, H. (2022). “Teaching, my passion; publishing, my pain”: Unpacking academics’ professional identity tensions through the lens of emotional resilience. Higher Education, 84(2), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00765-w
  56. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
  57. Kloos, C., Alario-Hoyos, C., Morales, M., Rocael, H., Jerez, O., Pérez-Sanagustín, M.,. & López, A. (2021). PROF-XXI: Teaching and Learning Centers to Support the 21st Century Professor. 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council, 447-454, IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9657301
  58. Oliván-Blázquez, B., Aguilar-Latorre, A., Gascón-Santos, S., Gómez-Poyato, M. J., Valero-Errazu, D., Magallón-Botaya, R.,. & Porroche-Escudero, A. (2023). Comparing the use of flipped classroom in combination with problem-based learning or with case-based learning for improving academic performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221081550