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

Abstract

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.