Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 1

Kalite Elçilerinin Yükseköğretimde Kalite Yönetimine ve Teknoloji Engellerine İlişkin Görüşleri

The Views of The Quality Ambassadors on Quality Management in Higher Education and the Technological Barriers Encountered

Sayfa
316–351
Yayın Tarihi
2020-04-28
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Finally, the external (infrastructure problems, resource constraints, vision) and the internal (individual deficiencies, beliefs) technology barriers were identified among the views on technological barriers in achieving goals and objectives in higher education during quality processes.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Öz In this study, it was aimed to examine the views of quality ambassadors about general structure of quality processes in higher education and technology barriers in depth.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Besides, among the views on the necessity of quality processes in higher education there were such findings as standardization, including students in the process, performance measurement, and communication with stakeholders.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Finally, the external (infrastructure problems, resource constraints, vision) and the internal (individual deficiencies, beliefs) technology barriers were identified among the views on technological barriers in achieving goals and objectives in higher education during quality processes.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:kalite · kalite elçileri · kalite süreci

Özet

Öz In this study, it was aimed to examine the views of quality ambassadors about general structure of quality processes in higher education and technology barriers in depth. For this purpose, the study was carried out based on the case study criteria sampling method which is one of the qualitative research method and therefore the study group consisted of eight participants who were working at a state university in Turkey and involved actively in the quality processes. A semi-structured interview form created by the researchers to collect data. Descriptive analysis was used in the analysis of data. It was found that there were some findings about the advantages of quality processes in higher education such as creation of standardization, inclusion of students in the process, elimination of arbitrariness, and ease of gaining professional skills, while there were the views on the disadvantages of quality processes in higher education, work load, formality of process, failure to meet different demands from students, the difficulty of creating new activity plans. Besides, among the views on the necessity of quality processes in higher education there were such findings as standardization, including students in the process, performance measurement, and communication with stakeholders. Finally, the external (infrastructure problems, resource constraints, vision) and the internal (individual deficiencies, beliefs) technology barriers were identified among the views on technological barriers in achieving goals and objectives in higher education during quality processes.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

HAMUTOĞLU, N. B., BAŞARMAK, U., SEZEN-GÜLTEKİN, G., ELMAS, M. (2020). Kalite Elçilerinin Yükseköğretimde Kalite Yönetimine ve Teknoloji Engellerine İlişkin Görüşleri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 1, 316–351. https://ajindex.com/articles/6060

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Akbacak, Ş. (1996). Toplam kalite yönetiminde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve başarısızlık nedenleri. Kovan Dergisi (1. H.I.B.M. Komutanlığı Bülteni),2(1), 11. Alkan, C. (2011). Eğitim teknolojisi. (8. Baskı). Ankara:
  2. Anı Yayıncılık. Akçatepe, G. A. (2013). Eğitim fakülteleri eğitim bilimleri bölümü akademisyenlerinin yükseköğretimin amaçlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Yayınlanmış Yüksek lisans tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eğitim Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Bilim Dalı, Ankara.
  3. Aktan, C. C. (2007). Yükseköğretimde değişim: Global trendler ve yeni paradigmalar. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 39-48.
  4. Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42.
  5. Armstrong, L. (2016). Barriers to innovation and change in higher education. TIAA-CREF Institute. Ayaz, N. ve Arakaya, A. (2019). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ölçümü: Öğrenci İşleri Daire Başkanlığı Örneği. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 9(1), 123-133.
  6. Bayrak, B. (2007). Yükseköğretim kurumlarından beklenen hizmet kalitesi ve hizmet kalitesinin algılanmasına yönelik bir araştırma. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  7. Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 Higher Education Edition (pp. 1-60).
  8. The New Media Consortium. Bektaş, H. ve Akman, S. U. (2013). Yükseköğretimde Hizmet Kalitesi Ölçeği: Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik Analizi. Ekonometri ve İstatistik e-Dergisi, 18, 116-133.
  9. Belenli, İ., Günay, D., Öztemel, E., Demir, A., Şerifoğlu, F. S., Elmas, M.,. ve Kılıç, M. (2011). Türkiye yükseköğretim kurumları için kalite güvence oluşumu üzerine bir model önerisi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(3), 128-133.
  10. Bengisu, M. (2007). Yüksek eğitimde toplam kalite yönetimi. Journal of Yaşar University, 2(7), 739-749.
  11. Bidabadi, N. S., Isfahan, A. N., Rouhollahi, A., & Khalili, R. (2016). Effective teaching methods in higher education: Requirements and barriers. Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 4(4), 170. Castelló-Climent, A., & Hidalgo-Cabrillana, A. (2012). The role of educational quality and quantity in the process of economic development. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), 391-409.
  12. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. E