ANADOLU UNIVERSITY TURKEY FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION REPORT

Transcription

1 ANADOLU UNIVERSITY TURKEY FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION REPORT November 2010 Team: Jarmo Visakorpi, chair Richard Lewis Karina Ufert Jacqueline Smith, team coordinator

2 Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Institutional Evaluation Programme and follow-up evaluation process The national context Anadolu University in the national context The self evaluation process The evaluation team (later Team) 6 2. Follow-up on 2008 recommendations 2.1 Vision, mission and strategic plan Governance and management Financial management Human resource management Teaching/learning and student services Bologna Process and internationalisation Research Relations with industry and society Quality culture Special focus: distance education Conclusions: challenges for the future. 20 2

3 1. Introduction This report is the result of a follow-up evaluation of Anadolu University-AU. EUA s Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) originally evaluated Anadolu University in 2008, the year of the university s 50 th anniversary, with the final report submitted to the University in October In November 2009, the University subsequently requested that IEP carry out a follow-up evaluation. The election of a new Rector and renewal of the leadership team at Anadolu University meant that the follow-up evaluation took place almost a year after the request, in October Institutional Evaluation Programme and follow-up evaluation process The Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) is an independent membership service of the European University Association (EUA) that offers evaluations to support the participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and internal quality culture. In line with EUA s Institutional Evaluation Programme as a whole, the follow-up process is a supportive one. There is no prescribed procedure, and it is for the institution itself to set the agenda in the light of its experiences since the original evaluation. The institution is expected to submit its own self-evaluation report, which will describe the progress made, possibly indicating barriers to change. The rationale is that the follow-up evaluation can assist the institution in evaluating the changes that have been made since the original evaluation: What was the impact of the original evaluation? What use has the institution made of the original evaluation report? How far has it been able to address the issues raised in the report? The follow-up evaluation is also an opportunity for the institution to take stock of its strategies for managing change in the context of internal and external constraints and opportunities. As for the original evaluation, the follow-up process is also guided by four key questions, which are based on a fitness for (and of) purpose approach: What is the institution trying to do? How is the institution trying to do it? How does it know it works? 1.2 The national context How does the institution change in order to improve? In Turkey, the Council on Higher Education-YOK is a public body responsible for the planning, coordination, governance and supervision of higher education within the provisions set forth in the Constitution and the Higher Education Law 1. Since the

4 evaluation, a number of changes have occurred in the national context. The SER gives a more detailed account of these changes; they are only briefly summarised here: The number of higher education institutions has dramatically increased, from 115 in 2008 to 154 in As stated in the EUA coordinated review of higher education institutions in Turkey Expansion has been deliberately supported by the government in order to provide for a young population, and is a dominant factor in the national strategy. 2 A number of the new higher education institutions (HEIs) are actually offshoots of other universities. The number of HEIs offering distance education has increased to 33. However, in 2010 the total number of students enrolled in distance education in universities other than Anadolu University reached only about In order to staff the new universities, recruitment of certain categories of personnel in particular assistant professors may be frozen in the other HEIs. A new law, to be implemented in 2011, may order that revolving funds generated from distance education can be used only for the benefit of individuals who have directly contributed to the provision of distance education. Since 2005 a system of quality assurance is being developed, with the establishment of YÖDEK at the national level and the boards of academic evaluation and quality development ADEK at institutional level ANADEK at AU; and now there are plans to establish a private and independent quality agency, the Higher Education Assessment and Quality Society. More recently YOK has approved a draft version of the regulation to establish advisory boards with the participation of external stakeholders for universities. It should be applicable in the near future. The last two points both correspond to recommendations made by IEP in its coordinated evaluation of seventeen Turkish universities and of the evaluation of Anadolu University in It should be noted that the expansion of the higher education student population seems to have stopped, or at least slowed down significantly and in fact for the academic year 2010/11 a number of places were not filled, in state as well as in foundation universities. 2 Higher Education in Turkey: Trends, Challenges, Opportunities p

5 The combination of the increase in the number of HEIs and lesser demand suggests that competition for students may soon become a common feature of recruitment strategies. 1.3 Anadolu University in the national context With over on-campus students and nearly 1.6 million students enrolled in distance education (2009/10 figures) Anadolu University is by far the largest university in Turkey, and in fact one of the largest distance education universities in the world. Around 40% (the percentage varies slightly depending on the source) of students in Turkey are enrolled in Anadolu. This fact should give AU high leverage in influencing policy making at national level, but, as transpired during the visit, this appears rarely to be the case. Anadolu University offers a wide spectrum of education in its 12 faculties, 7 schools, 3 vocational schools 9 institutes/graduates schools and 39 centres according to the 2010 self evaluation report (SER). Anadolu University occupies a unique position in certain fields, such as special education for the hearing impaired, civil aviation, railroad and transport engineering, and, of course, distance education. All are recognised for the high level of the education provided. Details about the institution and its history can be found in the 2008 and 2010 self evaluation reports and on the informative website 3. At the end of 2009 the election process led to a new Rector and a new leadership team heading the university. During the several months that preceded the vote, much of the attention focused on the election campaign. At the time of visit the leadership team had been in office for less than a year. Yet continuity was ensured: the initiatives taken under the previous rectorship were being pursued and the request for a follow up IEP evaluation which had been sent by the previous Rector was confirmed by the new one. 1.4 The Self Evaluation Process The self-evaluation process was undertaken by an ad hoc team headed by the Vice Rector for Research, International relations and Strategic Plan, Prof. Dr. Hasan Mandal, and comprised of 17 members representing different segments of the University. Through frequent meetings and search conference, the self evaluation team ensured wide participation from the university community in the process. Members of the team obviously drew on their experience from the 2008 evaluation and as a result produced an informative, analytical and useful self evaluation report-ser

6 1.5 The evaluation team (later Team) The self-evaluation report of Anadolu University, along with the appendices, was sent to the evaluation team in due time, in September. The site visit of the evaluation team to Anadolu University took place on October 2010.The evaluation team consisted of: Prof. Jarmo Visakorpi, former Rector University of Tampere, Finland, Chair Prof. Richard Lewis, former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Open University, United Kingdom Karina Ufert, Masters student, University of Vilnius, Lithuania Jacqueline Smith, former analyst, OECD-IMHE Programme, France, Team coordinator The Team would like to thank the Rector, Prof.Dr Aydin, and all the staff and students of Anadolu University, for their warm welcome and for the many helpful and open discussions during the visit. Special thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Hasan Mandal, the liaison person, and his colleagues, for support and efficiency in arranging the programmes and liaising with the team. 2. Follow-up on 2008 Recommendations In 2008 the review team offered a detailed set of recommendations. Part of the followup review process consists in trying to evaluate the degree of implementation of each of these recommendations, taking into account the obstacles or constraints that may have arisen along the way, and offering suggestions to continue the process. The 2008 recommendations and changes are reviewed below. Each recommendation is summarised here, the full text being available in the original report, followed by the current Team s findings and updated recommendations when indicated. 2.1 Vision, mission and strategic plan Recommendations 1 to 3: Revise the statements of vision and mission and further revise the strategic plan; devise recognition and incentives mechanisms for exceeding strategic targets; develop specific strategic plans for distance education and vocational education. Much work has been accomplished in this area in the last 2 years, in spite of the apparent legal inconsistencies: HEIs are legally required to produce a strategic plan but no legal requirement exists for its implementation. However, AU looks at the strategic plan as a sort of tool that will help establish a quality culture. Anadolu University has taken a creative approach to developing the strategic plan, with good progress so far. Revisions were undertaken through a participatory and systematic approach by means of search conferences, as stated in the SER. AU should be commended for its initiative. Not only did this approach ensure a wide input from many stakeholders, it also became a process of learning. In the words of some interviewees the process gave an opportunity to stop and think, to rationalise and prioritise what we are doing, and at least now 6

7 we understand why we are doing certain things. What started as a top-down initiative became a bottom-up process, embedding the new strategic plan in the university culture. A revised plan was approved by the Senate, although it is still incomplete and in need of further improvements. In Anadolu University there seems to be a clear idea of the purpose of the strategic plan, which is to help on-going development and to establish a quality culture. Further work should focus on preparing an overall statement to present the vision and mission, and on clarifying objectives and action lines. For example, is a system for rewarding achievements in educational activities an objective since it was not part of the education approach in the past, or an action line to increase and sustain the efficiency of education processes? In the process of clarifying the goals and objectives, it may be useful to be guided by four questions: what should be achieved? How will it be achieved? Who will be responsible to carry out the task? When will the aim be achieved? And to decide what terms should be used: some confusion may remain regarding the meaning and full impact of notions such as quality culture, quality assessment and assurance, strategic plan and, in relation to the latter, goals and objectives, actions plans. The Team recommends spelling out the all encompassing strategic plan into action plans. The current strategic plan lists 11 strategic goals which are detailed into 27 objectives and numerous sub-objectives. Besides the needed clarification described above, this list would gain in efficiency if it were shortened and simplified. The plan will incorporate the strategic plans of the different operational units, which were to be completed by mid-october. Care should be taken that this will not consist of adding more goals and action lines to the existing plan, but that it will involve integrating the various plans into a coherent overall strategic plan concerning the entire institution. The only possible exception applies to the three vocational schools which operate in a slightly different educational context; thus a general plan specific to vocational education would be appropriate. Besides, open/distance education being such a distinctive and important component of AU, it should be highlighted more strongly in the plan. On another point, quality is mentioned once in strategic goal 5, in relation to scientific research. However if AU aims to establish a quality culture that pervades the whole institution, then this priority should be clearly stated and more reference to quality and quality assurance should appear in the strategic plan. In summary, the Team congratulates the university on the work already accomplished in just two years. The Team recommends continuing the work by further revising the strategic plan and - developing the overall preliminary statement that introduces vision and mission - clarifying goals and action plans 7

8 - integrating the units plans - reducing the number of goals and action plans - highlighting internal quality assurance - developing a general plan for vocational education - giving more importance to open/distance education. 2.2 Governance and management Recommendations 4 to 7: Establish a high level advisory board; seek means to improve student representative systems; careful management of roles of ANADEK; simplify organisational structure. As evidenced in the development of the strategic plan and the various measures to address quality concerns, ANADEK indeed assumes a more active role. The University community has accepted the need to make the recommended changes and started taking steps to increase student participation and to simplify the organisational structure. Already the importance of research is acknowledged and placed under the responsibility of one Vice-Rector, following the IEP recommendation. However, progress in developing governance and structure is hampered by the many legal constraints. The trend elsewhere in Europe is now to grant HEIs a large degree of internal autonomy to define their own structure; it is hoped that legislation in Turkey will evolve in this direction. In the meantime more can be done within the present legal framework. The AU leadership has proven very creative in devising new approaches to accomplish various tasks. The Team trusts that the same creativity will help in improving the governance structure. Elsewhere in Europe, more and more HEIs tend towards management-type governance, with fewer committees or commissions, involving fewer members so as to remain really operational. In many countries, governing boards are standard for private institutions and increasingly more common in public institutions as well. While this is not yet possible for public institutions in Turkey, YOK has accepted the need for advisory boards with external members and is preparing the relevant legislation. The Team considers that this is an encouraging step in the right direction. In this context, it would be in AU s interest to establish its advisory board as soon as possible, making sure to include a significant participation from external partners and students. HEIs can benefit greatly not only from external stakeholders but also from students involvement in all advisory and decision making bodies. When this is not yet part of the university culture special efforts are required to foster acceptance on the part of the staff and active participation on the part of the students. In that respect more can be done to stimulate their participation at AU: information sessions about university activities, making sure student representatives are systematically and specifically invited to attend the meetings of their relevant committees, increasing the level of 8

9 responsibilities given to students in the appropriate activities such as student services, etc. (see also p.12) The organisation needs to be further simplified: the chart still includes 140 units without any clear systematic lines of communication between them. In summary, the Team acknowledges the progress made in modifying the structure and governance in spite of the legal constraints that make it difficult to move forward faster; the Team recommends that: - an advisory board be established as soon as possible - more be done to stimulate students involvement in governance - and that the organisational structure be further simplified. 2.3 Financial management Recommendation 8: Monitor closely all sources of income; explore opportunities to diversify sources of revolving funds Anadolu University is in the enviable position where funding appears to be generally sufficient. Of the total budget, 52% goes to salaries, which is low compared to most European universities and means that sizable funds are available for other activities. The main difficulties in financial management arise from the many legal constraints on the use of available funds. In addition, as in many countries, public funding per student is decreasing, and tuition fees are capped, therefore HEIs rely more and more on other sources of income. However the new law to come into effect in 2011 concerning the use of revolving funds is an important challenge; there needs to be a further discussion about how the law will be implemented in practice. This context reinforces the need for AU to diversify sources of revolving funds. At the moment there is almost exclusive reliance on distance education as a source: 95% of revolving funds come from distance education. AU started exploring other potential sources, and should actively continue to do so: the other specific areas of education such as civil aviation, railroads, special education, but also contracts with the private or public sectors as part of research and activities of the centres of excellence. Along with diversification of funding sources full costing contributes to financial sustainability. As EUA stated in a 2008 study 4 Only universities that know the full costs 4 Financially sustainable universities: towards full costing in European universities See also Higher Education in Turkey, op.cit., p.6. 9

10 of all their activities can judge if they are operating on a financially sustainable basis ; and it lists benefits for universities a more systematic approach to activity analysis and costing; a more efficient internal resource allocation; improved strategic decision-making based on better understanding of investment decisions; benchmarking possibilities within the sector and an enhanced ability to negotiate and price activities, which lead to higher cost recovery of project costs. For really efficient financial management, institutions need more internal autonomy, and a flexible, transparent and accountable system in the words of an interviewee but this depends on how much autonomy the law allows. The Team suggests: - Stimulating negotiations on implementation of the law regarding revolving funds - Pursuing the efforts to diversify sources of revolving funds - Developing a full costing system for use in financial management. 2.4 Human resource management Recommendations 9 to13: Develop a comprehensive strategy for human development; develop a system to recognise and reward good teaching; expand programmes for development of academic and administrative staff A number of steps have already been taken to improve human resource management - focus groups and surveys were conducted and the results served to devise next steps. The Centre for Academic Development-CAD- and the Centre for Project Management- CPD- offer training to all personnel, including administrative staff. These are important steps in the right direction. There are, however, legal problems when using incentive systems and additional payments for extra work, for example: the law does not allow to differentiate workloads by types of work. Yet the Bologna Turkey country report (2009, p. 40 b) states HE staff is encouraged to take part in flexible learning programmes by providing them extra income per hour/course 5. AU should take full advantage of this recommendation. In addition, the many different employment regimes 19 different statuses - with no standardisation or flexibility mean that management of the current human resources can be very cumbersome and possibly time wasteful. In spite of the legal constraints that limit the possibilities to reward individual or unit high performance, AU is developing a complex evidence-based incentives and reward system. This system will apply to all areas of academic functioning; it should be part of a /National_Report_Turkey_2009.pdf 10

11 career development counselling. Criteria and scores are being defined. One criterion could take academics and staff mobility into account. In addition, more weight should be given to the quality of teaching. However, a performance based incentive scheme cannot be introduced until the new law comes into effect. The recruitment of the new personnel needed, in particular for distance education, is especially problematic. This is partially due to the increased need for the academic work force in the country s new HEIS. Will this problem be alleviated in the future as the demand for HE abates? Already available student places were not all filled this year. Therefore, if this trend continues, it becomes essential to analyse needs and start anticipating how they can be met in the future. In summary, the Team recommends that AU - continue to provide and expand its training offer - pursue the development of its incentive and rewards system: the criteria should be carefully weighted, making sure that the various scores reflect the relative importance of the different criteria; in particular more importance should be given to the quality of teaching; and review the system as a whole to ensure that it is fully coherent - try to anticipate how staffing needs will be met if demands for higher education level off in the future. 2.5 Teaching/learning and student services Recommendations 14 to 17: Make use of student feedback on teaching and planning; use feedback from employers of graduates; continue to promote new teaching/learning methods; encourage permanent transformation of how students learn and how teachers facilitate learning; AU has developed student surveys the results of which are intended to contribute to improving course content. However students are not aware of the modifications and this may require more communication and feedback both ways: from the students to the administration via surveys and from the administration to the students via reports about the surveys and their use. Keeping in mind that one of the main purposes of education is employability, feedback from employers is essential to adapt teaching both content and pedagogy to the needs of the job market. At AU the feedback from employers derives from internships, and indirectly from the alumni association; this is one area where AU could try to develop some systematic mechanisms to evaluate the needs of the employment market and how the university can contribute to meeting them. Great progress has been achieved in several ways to update curriculum and teaching methods: a curriculum based on student workload is being developed, making use of feedback from students; there are initiatives towards defining learning and programme outcomes; teaching methods focus on student centred learning; and needs analysis are 11

12 conducted by the Centre for Academic Development in order to expand specific training services, in particular on student centred learning. The Team recommends making use of the student centred tool kit 6 developed by the European Student Union T4SCL- Time for Student Centred Learning. In these major undertakings it should remain clear that learning and programme outcomes are the ultimate goals while student centred learning is a means to reach those goals. Many steps will be required, but the process should be underway now, as set in the first strategic goal. In fact one notes that surveys have already provided the basic information needed to define learning outcomes, especially in vocational education which relies on feedback from the sector. Some of the necessary steps involve creating standards for the approval of educational programmes, assessment of student learning and quality of teaching staff, and completing the change from a year-based to a semester-based curriculum. As observed in 2008, the Team notes with approval that student support services are well developed, including the library and campus-wide wireless connections. What is missing at this point is greater student involvement and representation in the management of the institution, at all levels. This may not have been part of the culture in the past, yet great benefits for all are to be gained by involving as a partner one of the main stakeholders of education: the students themselves. The non-voting participation of one student in the Senate, and student representation in the faculty councils show some progress in the right direction, but much more needs to be accomplished: efforts should be extended to inform the students and draw them into active participation, but the students themselves need to show interest in establishing an active student union, selecting their representatives, connecting with other student unions in Turkey and in Europe. The AU leaders involved in this area and the students themselves are encouraged to explore the various forms of student participation, in other countries, and determine what could be done within the Turkey legal system. To summarise, the Team acknowledges progress with regards to teaching/learning and student services, and recommends going further: - define clearly what is meant by: learning outcomes, student centred learning - continue analysing teaching needs and setting up training services to meet them - extend feedback mechanisms to include feedback from employers - stimulate student interest in participating in management activities

13 2.6 Bologna Process and internationalisation Recommendations 23 and 24: actively encourage complete compliance with Bologna; continue to develop policies and action plans including language and cultural awareness activities for students and staff; support for incoming students; review performance and resource needs to ensure high performance re: student exchange and other areas. Throughout Europe the Bologna Process has become the standard to modify higher education systems and their legislation. This on-going process started 12 years ago. Different countries, and, within countries, different institutions are implementing the various actions lines at different paces. Within Turkey, Anadolu University appears to have made significant progress: the university has taken a holistic approach, set up a Bologna coordination committee, and designated one Vice-Rector as the person in charge of the process. A student-based workload curriculum and credit system have been implemented in on-campus programmes; the three-tier system has been adapted and is now more comparable with that of other countries; the change-over from year-based to semester-based courses is now the norm for on campus programmes; AU plans to do the same for distance learning programmes, within the next two or three years. Official recognition is important to continue progressing. The Team congratulates the University on being awarded the DS label just a few days prior to this visit, and trusts that the ECTS label will also be awarded in the near future. Both labels will contribute to facilitate mobility. While acknowledging the various steps already taken, the Team wishes to recall that the Bologna process is a developmental plan with a number of action lines besides degree structure and accumulation of credits 7 that all need to be addressed, in particular: flexible learning paths, recognition of prior learning, employability of graduates and contribution to lifelong learning. At the appropriate time AU should direct attention to the action lines that have not been addressed yet. Regarding internationalisation, the 2008 recommendations were essentially to continue and expand what was already being done. Indeed, in recent years there has been a number of initiatives to strengthen AU s international activities: the international office has been restructured along more flexible lines and given more responsibilities; international strategic cooperation has increased, especially in distance education, where a number of collaborative and/or dual programmes with institutions in other countries have been or are being established. AU has devised policies and action plans to support internationalisation, such as language and cultural awareness activities, support for incoming international students, offering 7 See or 13

14 courses in other languages. AU could internationalise curricula in certain fields and thus attract more foreign students. It is gratifying to see how the numbers of both incoming and outgoing students and teachers involved in exchange programmes have increased since , especially within the Erasmus programme. According to information provided to the Team during the visit, AU is one of the leading Turkish universities in mobility. In spite the limitations imposed by the national system AU could go further and explore possibilities to develop and implement other types of mobility than just the one based on credit accumulation. Unfortunately, because of legal constraints the university is not allowed to cover salaries for incoming visiting staff, nor certain costs for students - and economic conditions the high costs of visas and some foreign tuition it becomes difficult to invite foreign staff, or even, as stated by one interviewee, a challenge to persuade students to go abroad, except with Erasmus which pays studies. Drastic reduction in public financial support means that in future years AU will no longer take part in Erasmus Mundus. It is hoped that in a not too distant future conditions will become favourable again. In this context it is not easy to offer specific suggestions, but the Team recommends that AU continues its efforts to: - take Bologna as an on-going process that should be included in the institution strategic plan - increase the number of students in incoming and outgoing mobility - further develop staff mobility - develop programmes in other languages and internationalise curricula. 2.7 Research Recommendations 18 to 20: Identify priority themes, drawing on the whole academic spectrum; consider setting up a central research management and support office; several actions: early access, research career, sabbaticals, foreign academics. AU has acted on all the recommendations; significant progress has been achieved: four new priority themes have been identified (see more under point 2.8) presenting different academic strengths of the AU. These all refer to multidisciplinary and problem based projects. A database is now in place; in the future projects will be funded on fields of priorities identified and as selected by the commissions. The university has developed a complex research management system; research is now placed under the responsibility of a designated Vice-Rector; several commissions were set up, going beyond the legal requirements e.g. with the AKK-Research Coordination Commission specific to AU and the AEK-Research Ethical Commission; the project support office functions with 9 full 14

15 time staff; the intellectual property rights office connects with the Turkish patent office. In addition AU hopes to set up a technology transfer office. There are attempts at involving students in research at earlier stages in their studies, for example undergraduate BSc. students taking part in a solar car project, or graduation projects. As already mentioned in section 2.3, AU is fortunate that research funding is not a problem; in fact the university has been able to offer research scholarships, which few institutions can do. The University still depends on other sources of funding for collaborative research. All these improvement measures have started to yield encouraging results: the number of projects that have received grants has nearly tripled in the last year, and the number of PhD students has steadily increased between and In spite of these commendable achievements, research remains a relatively weak sector at Anadolu. Once again, rigid regulations that prevent covering certain expenses e.g. salaries for invited foreign professors - or special individual rewards, make it difficult to launch desired initiatives. The Team notes, however, that the legislation appears to be slowly evolving: the new law will allow incentives and reward mechanisms based on performance; it is possible to undertake multidisciplinary research. Certainly the new centres of excellence the two already approved and the two expected to be approved soon will stimulate research initiatives, expand the opportunities of collaboration with other institutions, focus research priorities, and hopefully contribute to relax the rigid regulations. Another difficulty is the lack of motivation for research: heavy workloads, lack of incentives or rewards, limited awareness of the possibilities, all these factors are probably responsible. This may account for the lack of research in the field of distance education, a surprising fact considering the importance of distance education for Anadolu. AU has the potential to become a leader of research in this field; hopefully this will become a priority when the centre of excellence is created. Even though early access of students to active research is not the common practice, it should be encouraged as one of the ways to stimulate motivation. Another way is the incentive system once it is applied, and to grant researchers periods of time practically free of other duties, a condition necessary for world class research. AU should also consider establishing a tenure track career system in prioritised and research active areas. This may need modification of the law, but initiatives in this direction are now very important. To summarise, in order to continue enhancing research at Anadolu, the Team recommends: - to start using the incentive system as soon as possible and to consider establishing a tenure track career system - to support scientists in their search for external funding 15

16 - more stimulation for early access and for doctoral studies - to try to find ways to free time in spite of legal constraints. 2.8 Relations with industry and society Recommendations 21 and 22: Model Ceramics Research Centre to be expanded to other fields; continue to enhance and diversify contribution to LLL. In this field AU is really strong both theoretically and practically. AU maintains excellent contacts with many external partners. The model of the ceramic research centre has been expanded in two special areas, civil aviation and railway systems, National Expertise and Research Centres have recently been established. This means that collaboration with other HEIs and various stakeholders will greatly increase, as will AU s impact on the economic life of the country, and the university s positive reputation. In all probability, two other National Expertise and Research Centers will be established within one or two years: in Open and Distance Education and in Education for special needs handicapped or gifted. The expertise in those fields is well recognised, as evidenced by the fact that the centre has already contributed to change the common misconceptions about hearing impairment. AU sustains contribution to lifelong learning in 5 contexts, well described in the self evaluation report. Initiatives such as the 24-hour TV Broadcasting channel set up in collaboration with the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation for adult education and continuing education is a particularly worthwhile initiative. The Team offers congratulations on the excellence centres already approved, and on the various accomplishments in this area; and recommends continuing along the same lines. 2.9 Quality culture Recommendations 25 to 29: ANADEK to continue supporting strategic change; review roles and resources of SIC and CAD; internal evaluation system to include external and international and stakeholder involvement; examine practices in universities to be compared with. EUA s European project on Quality Culture (2006) sees it as referring to an organisational culture characterised by a cultural/psychological element on the one hand, and a structural/managerial element on the other hand. In the Standards Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area-ESG ENQA recommends that Institutions should have a policy and associated procedures for the assurance of the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. They should also commit themselves explicitly to the development of a culture 16

17 which recognises the importance of quality, and quality assurance, in their work 8. And the ESG add that The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly available. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders. Following the 2008 evaluation recommendations, ANADEK assumes a more active role, especially in the development of the Strategic plan (see section 2.1 above). The Statistical Information Center-SIC duties are enhanced and the Center for Academic Development has been restructured and is preparing training programmes. Parallel to these internal developments, programmes are being assessed; it is envisioned that by 2013 all Anadolu s programmes will be accredited. Other measures that contribute to developing quality and quality assurance have been taken; the various research commissions (section 2.7), recalculation of student workloads and definition of credits (sections 2.5 and 2.6) among others. These are all positive steps for which AU can be congratulated. Now the university needs to go further. The fact of having external accreditation does not preclude the need for an internal QA system. Indeed, AU intends to start an internal evaluation system after the strategic plans are completed; this should include internal quality assurance procedures, which are consistent with ESG. In doing so, according to EUA It is crucial. to distinguish quality culture from quality assurance processes, which are part of the structural element. Along the same lines, it is important to clarify what is meant by the different terms: quality culture, quality assessment, quality assurance. To enhance its efforts to establish a quality culture, Anadolu University should give active consideration to whether it should create an autonomous QA office, independent of the top management and to the appointment of a QA chief. While ANADEK has carried significant responsibility in developing quality measures, the mode by which its members are nominated limits its independence and thus its credibility. An independent Quality Assurance office would contribute more effectively to establish the desired quality culture. Finally, AU is encouraged to explore how other institutions, in Turkey and elsewhere, address the issues of quality - culture, assessment, assurance. This would be a first step towards benchmarking. Useful suggestions can be found in the Benchmarking in European Higher Education project

18 To further develop quality culture at Anadolu, the Team recommends: - establishing an internal quality assurance system - involving students and external stakeholders in the QA system - creating quality assurance procedures consistent with ESG - considering the establishment of a QA office and appointment of a QA chief - exploring opportunities for benchmarking Special Focus: Distance Education Recommendations 30 to 33: Increase the variety of the programmes and courses; Increase the flexibility of the distance education system; feedback systems for distance education students; special advisory board for distance education; distance learning to be standing item on agenda of all senate meetings Distance education is a distinctive and strong component of Anadolu University. With nearly half the Turkish student population AU could be a major player in the field of distance education. AU deserves congratulations for, or being in the process of, implementing the 2008 recommendations: the number of programmes and courses offered has increased; a programme started for gradual change from year based to semester based curriculum, which will facilitate transfers from distance to on-campus education and vice versa; there are projects to develop and improve the evaluation system and initial steps were taken to develop an examination methodology based on formats other than multiple choice questions; AU reports efforts to extend the scope of academic counselling, of administrative support and to set up a feedback system; and distance education is indeed regularly discussed during the weekly Executive and periodic Senate meetings. In addition to the accomplishments listed above, the Team was impressed by the initiatives to develop dual programmes with other institutions in Turkey, and in other countries; particularly noteworthy are the programmes developed in cooperation with a distance education institution in Russia and the collaboration with the television channel TRT. All these activities are signs of a creative dynamic institution, which inspires admiration, even though there remains some disappointment that the steps are not taken at the desired pace. Like the other faculties, the distance learning faculties suffer from a surfeit of regulations, but in addition these regulations are designed for campus based education and are particularly ill suited for distance learning. The academic community feels that for the public, and for the authorities, distance education remains of lower quality even though 18

19 AU has well demonstrated the high level of training offered through this medium. AU intends to continue its efforts to inform one is tempted to say educate - the general public and convince the authorities. In this respect help may come from the other 32 HEIs which offer distance education; far from representing real competition at the moment their combined number of distant students represents less than 3% of the number of AU students they can join forces with AU to influence regulations and inspire legislation specifically framed for distance education. Hopefully this influence will become determinant when the distance education centre of excellence is established at Anadolu. On these points as well as others, AU may find it beneficial to be in contact with other major distance education institutions in Europe 10. The leadership aims to integrate distance and on campus education. However there seem to be mixed feelings: one feels the sense of two communities rather than a fully integrated community. Nowadays the boundaries between distance and onsite education are blurring everywhere: on campus students can follow some of their courses online, distant students will attend some modules on-campus during holidays or weekends. However this form of education implies that degrees are all similarly structured and based on the same credit system, and that the higher education system allows this flexibility. The change-over to semester based curricula, modified examination procedures, improved feedback mechanisms, increased counselling, teaching provided in other languages as well as Turkish, the participation of all oncampus academic staff in the preparation of courses, these are all steps in the right direction. AU is encouraged to actively pursue these activities, and if possible identify new ones, to integrate the two communities as one. It seems that at Anadolu University the terms distance education and open education are used interchangeably. Since open means either open admission education with no prerequisite, or open to access in the sense of not being constrained by the need to attend classes at stated times, the Team recommends systematically referring to open and distance education. However, the Team s main point is that the education process can be made more open for campus students, particularly if more use is made of the material produced for distance education students. In fact e-learning can support learning in general; it may be worth exploring the full potential virtual learning can bring when organising innovative and student centred learning processes. As mentioned earlier, AU enjoys a healthy financial situation, in respect to distance and open education as well as overall, in spite of the legal constraints. However the new law will be even more restrictive, in setting students fees and on their use, thus reinforcing the need to adopt full cost budgeting. 10 In particular : Open University UK and Universitat Oberta de Catalunya 19

20 The issue of quality assurance is one for the entire university but specific measures appropriate for open and distance education must be defined. This should be related to recommendations made in point 2.1 on mission and strategic plan and point 2.9 on quality culture. The planned specific advisory board could contribute greatly in this respect. As mentioned above, the Team s thoughts are that the university, through the existence of two separate cultures, is not gaining the full benefits that can be derived from integrating the campus based and distance learning education; the Team would urge that steps are taken to break down the separate cultures. However, the Team recommends that a separate evaluation of distance education provision be considered because it does appear that this very important aspect of the university s work is paid insufficient attention in overall institutional evaluations. To summarise, the Team reiterate their congratulation for the many accomplishments in the area of open and distance education. Besides the specific suggestions mentioned above, the Team s main recommendation is to keep the momentum going for the constant improvement of this very good programme. 3. Conclusions and challenges for the future The overall impression after two and a half years is that, in spite of legal constraints, Anadolu University is moving in the right direction; following IEP 2008 recommendations much has been accomplished. For this follow-up evaluation the University raised four main questions which have all been at least partially addressed during the visit and in this report. Regarding the quality and sustainability of the open and distance education system, obviously this is one of Anadolu s strengths. As already stated, the issue of quality concerns the entire university; only specific relevant measures may have to be devised for distance education. Degree structures, curriculum development, student assessment, all have to be aligned with on campus education. Above all, the joint programmes initiatives in collaboration with HEIs in Turkey and abroad must be pursued. Research in the field of distance education needs to be stimulated. The next two questions are related: how to ensure that academic and administrative staff adopt quality improvement and strategic plans, and what else to do about development of human resources. Both require that staff be well equipped for their jobs: that they have the required qualifications, are given opportunities to develop these qualifications through additional training, and can look forward to years of successful professional activities with the help of career development counselling. Adopting quality improvement, i.e. developing a quality culture, also implies a high motivation level, a sense of ownership towards the strategic plan. The bottom up approach which consists of involving staff and other stakeholders in the development of the strategic plan or the 20