Higher Education Quality Indicators: A Scale Development Study

Year 2023, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 555 - 573, 28.12.2023

İsa Bahat , Kasım Karakütük

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1348861

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to develop a Likert-type scale aimed at determining how quality indicators in higher education are perceived by faculty members. A pilot study of the research was conducted with the participation of 390 faculty members. As a result of the factor analysis applied to test the construct validity of the 67-item draft scale, a measurement tool consisting of 9 dimensions and 49 items was developed. The first dimension is named Education and Instruction, the second is Structure of the University, the third is Socio-Cultural Opportunities, the fourth is Internationalization, the fifth is Economic Opportunities, the sixth is Student Requirements, the seventh is Accreditation, the eighth is Preferability, and the ninth is Technological Competence. The overall Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale has been calculated as 0.96. Additionally, as a result of the independent groups t-test for the reliability of the scale, it has been determined that items and factors are distinctive between the lower and upper 27% groups; the item-total and item-remainder correlation values are significant. Correlation coefficients between factors and the test-retest correlation coefficient for the entire scale have been found significant. Based on the conducted analyses, the validity and reliability of the scale have been established. The scale has been named the Higher Education Quality Indicators: Faculty Member Scale (HEQIFMS).

Keywords

Higher education, Quality in higher education, Quality

References

• Ağın, K. (2020). Toplam kalite yönetimi bağlamında Kaizen felsefesinin örgütlerin maliyet, verimlilik ve kalite düzeylerine etkileri (Effects of kaizen philosophy on cost, productivity and quality levels of organizations in the context of total quality management). Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 24 (3), 1191-1207.
• Aksoy, H. (2001). Eğitimde kalitenin kalite sistemleri, eşitlik ve küreselleşmeye ilişkin boyutları [Eğitimde Toplam Kalite Yönetimi Paneli]. Ankara: Türkiye Kalite Derneği Ankara Şubesi.
• Aksoy, H., Aras, Ö., Çankaya, D., & Kayahan Karakul , A. (2011). Eğitimde nitelik: Eğitim ekonomisi kuramlarının eğitimin niteliğine ilişkin kurgusunun eleştirel analizi (Quality in education: Critical analysis of economics of education theories’ envision regarding to quality of education). Journal of Education Science Society, 9(33), 60-99.
• Audin, K., Davy, J., & Barkham, M. (2003) University quality of life and learning (UNIQoLL): An approach to student well-being, satisfaction and institutional change. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 365-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877032000128073
• Aytar, O., Çil, U., Hoşbay Bayraktar, D. & Soylu, Ş. (2018). Hizmet kalitesi ölçüm yöntemleri ve yükseköğretimde stratejik yönetim bilgi kaynağı yöntem önerisi (Measurement methods of service quality and a proposal of methodology for ınformation resource of strategic management in higher education). Journal of Higher Education and Science, 8(2), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2018.267
• Balcı, A. (1998). Yükseköğretimde toplam kalite yönetimi ölçeği (Total quality management scale in higher education). Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 15 (15), 319-334.
• Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
• Baykul, Y. (2015). Eğitim ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test teori ve uygulaması. ÖSYM.
• Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
• Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606
• Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S.(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
• Brucks, M. Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300283005
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (4. Baskı). Pegem A.
• Büyükşahin, Y., & Şahin, A. E. (2017). Öğretmenlerin gözünden eğitimde kalite sorunsalı (Quality problematic in education from teachers’ view point). Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(3), 1134-1152. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.290859
• Cemaloğlu, N. (1998). Eğitimde kalitenin tanımlanması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 14(14), 233-248.
• Çetinsaya, G. (2014). Büyüme, kalite, uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için bir yol haritası. Anadolu Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi‐models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22-31.
• Çimen, O. (2012). Yükseköğretimde talep-finansman-kalite ilişkisi (The relationship between demand-finance-quality at higher educatıon). Gümüşhane University Journal of Intitute of Social Sciences, 3(6), 159-183.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekerçioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Pegem A.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme kuram ve uygulamalar (T. Totan, Çev.). Nobel Yayınevi.
• De Weert, E. (1990). A macro-analysis of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 19(1), 57-72.
• Dicker, R., Garcia, M., Kelly, A., & Mulrooney, H. (2019). What does ‘quality’ in higher education mean? Perceptions of staff, students and employers. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1425-1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1445987
• Hamalainen, K. (2003). Common standards for programme evaluations and accreditation? European Journal of Education, 38(3), 291-300. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-3435.00148
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kalaycı, N., Başaran, M. A. & Demirhan-Yüksel, Y. (2011). Yükseköğretimde kalite? Sorun, öğrenciler anlatsın. Uluslararası Yükseköğretim Kongresi: Yeni Yönelişler ve Sorunlar (UYK-2011). İstanbul: YÖK.
• Kanwar, A. & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2015). A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources (OER). Paris, Vancouver: UNESCO and Commonwealth of Learning.
• Karakaya, A., Kılıç, İ. & Uçar, M. (2016). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğretim kalitesi algısı üzerine bir araştırma (A Survey on university students' perceptions on teaching quality). Karabük University Journal of Intitute of Social Sciences, 2, 40-55.
• Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Yayınevi.
• Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
• Kayadibi, F. (2001). Eğitim kalitesine etki eden faktörler ve kaliteli eğitimin üretime katkısı (Factors influencing educational quality and the contribution of quality education to production). Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Theology, (3).
• Kölemen, C. Ş., & Erişen, Y. (2017). Mesleki ve teknik ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin problem çözme ve eleştirel düşünme becerileri ile akademik başarıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi (An investigation on the relationship between problem solving and critical thinking skill, and academic achievement of vocational and technical high school students). Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 2(1), 42-60.
• Lee, J. J., & Stensaker, B. (2021). Research on internationalisation and globalisation in higher education—Reflections on historical paths, current perspectives and future possibilities. European Journal of Education, 56, 157– 168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12448
• Liu, S. (2016). Higher Education quality assessment and university change: A Theoretical approach. Springer Singapore.
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: the role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611–637. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06
• Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
• Otrar, M. & Argın, F. S. (2015). Öğrencilerin sosyal medyaya ilişkin tutumlarını belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması (A scale development study to determine the attitude of students' towards social media). Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4, 1(37).
• Özdamar, K. (2016). Eğitim, sağlık ve davranış bilimlerinde ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Nisan.
• Özdemir, S., Çağatay, A. Ç., Öğdem, Z. & Er, E. (2013). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin fakülte yaşamının niteliğine ilişkin memnuniyet düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi (Examination of the satisfaction levels of education faculty students on the quality of faculty life according to different variables). Journal of Higher Education and Science, 3(3), 228-235. https:// doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2013.081
• Özer, M., Gür, B., & Küçükcan, T. (2010). Yükseköğretimde kalite güvencesi. Seta Yayınları.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar (Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications). Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Syahrial, E., Suzuki, H., Schvaneveldt, S. J., & Masuda, M. (2018). Customer perceptions of mediating role of ownership cost in Garvin’s dimensions of quality. Journal of Japan Society for Management Engineering, 69(2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.11221/jima.69.95
• Şencan, H., (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. (Birinci Baskı). Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, Massachusets, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality and performance in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320120045076
• Tan, H. (1989). Türk eğitiminde kalite sorunu (Quality issues in Turkish education). Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 129-139.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayınevi.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Retrieved May 10, 2020 from, https://acikders.ankara.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=46073