Istanbul University, Department of Economics BEYAZIT-FATIH ISTANBUL A model proposal for new generation university in the light of digitalized society: The Case of Turkish University System Prof. Dr. Metin TOPRAK Istanbul University, Department of Economics BEYAZIT-FATIH ISTANBUL metin.toprak@İstanbul.edu.tr +90 533 6086469

New Turkey – New CoHE- New University The President uses “The New Turkey” The President of CoHE uses “The New CoHE” in official documents This means; We need “the new university model” 

The New System: After June 24, 2018 (Parliament & Presidency Election) 16 9 4 Directorates / Presidencies: organizational institutions (4) boards (4)

Martyrs monument (July 15 coup d'etat): the new system

a view from the new presidential compound: the new system

Motivation Turkey is still a candidate to the EU. The items in the EU higher education reform agenda are obligatory also for Turkey. A model developed here is in line with the reform agenda of the EU.

(Foundation University) New University Model (Foundation University) 21st century skills Interactive Active participation Corporate governance principles

Policy development and implementation offices (i) Strategy Development, Standards and Quality Assurance Office (ii) International Relations Office (iii) Project Development and Management Office (iv) Technology Transfer Office (v) Career Planning and On-the-Job Training Office (vi) Office of the Business World and Alumni Relations (vii) Entrepreneurship and Leadership Office (viii) New Jobs and New Skills Office (ix) Lifelong Learning Office (x) Internal Control and Internal Audit Office

Committees / Boards (affiliated to related offices and bodies) University ecosystem consultation and orientation board Executive committee (Rector’s Office) Committee for the recognition and transfer of prior learning Learning management systems committee Coop-education committee Professional / vocational qualifications committee Foreign language committee Individual learning support committee Entrepreneurship and leadership committee Joint degree programs committee Scholarship students committee Student council Student clubs Curriculum committee Research and project steering committee Research, project, publication and social activity promotion committee Committee for the appointment and promotion of academic staff Academic staff performance evaluation committee Equality of opportunity and ethics affairs board Human resources committee Administrative staff appointment and promotion committee Administrative staff performance evaluation committee Application and complaint monitoring committee Website monitoring committee Committee on business development and cooperation with stakeholders Committee of clusters Digital agenda committee European Higher Education Area compliance committee Quality assurance and accreditation committee Internal control and internal audit committee Exchange programs committee Disadvantages committee Information management committee

New …. In this study, a model has been developed in order to compensate coordination gaps in the traditional university hierarchical structure, which is designed as department, faculty board, university board and senate: From administration to governance.

New …. Five innovations can be mentioned in terms of organizational and functional configuration of a university model proposed: Profile of graduate and mission of the new generation university in the fields of education, research and community services, Policy development and implementation offices, University ecosystem consultation and steering committee and other committees and boards, Concept courses and branded courses, Coop-education and solution partnerships. The design of the Rector's Office is envisaged as an executive committee to prevent coordination gap in the proposed model.

New …. A checklist has been developed for the processing of this model and hence it is made possible to measure the performance of an practice- based university and degree of compatibility with the model. Thus, the framework and content of the mechanism and tools traditionally used in quality assurance and accreditation will need to be updated in line with this model.

Dimensions of governance model of the new generation university Introduction (motto of the university) Practice-based education (OJT) Vision and purpose Practice-based education model Profile of graduate The knowledge, skills and competence dimensions of the curriculum The ways courses are taught Qualification information form University possibilities and capabilities TR-HE-QF design and practice-based education Program key learning outcomes (PKLOs) Relationship between PKLOs and TR-HE-QF Course learning outcomes (CLOs) The relationship of CLOs and PKLOs Compulsory-elective course ratio Compulsory-elective course design Design of solution partnership Concept courses and branded courses ratios Concept courses design Design of branded courses Committees and Boards Policy development and implementation offices

Dimensions of evaluation: Checklist There are different number of items to be evaluated in the following dimensions University's vision and purpose (criterium to be taken as benchmark). The consolidated performance of the practice-based education model (summary: 20 dimensions). Identifying the graduate profile in accordance with practice-based education model (4 profiles). Dimensioning the curriculum in terms of knowledge, skills and competence (3 dimensions). The ways courses are taught (6 ways). Compatibility of practice-based education with the vision and purpose of the university designed in the qualification description form (9 items). Compatibility of the physical / financial / infrastructure capacity and the academic / researcher capacity of the university with the practice-based education model (5 items). Compatibility of TR-HE-QF with the practice-based education model (5 items). Compatibility of program key learning outcomes with the practice- based education model (15 items). Compatibility of the relationship of PKLOs and TR-HE-QF with the practice-based education model. Compatibility of CLOs with the practice-based education model (18 items). Compatibility of the relationship of CLOs and PKLOs with the practice-based education model. Compatibility of determining of ratios of compulsory and elective courses with the practice-based education model. Consistency of the relationship of compulsory and elective courses in the context of the practice-based education model (4 items). Consistency the design and feasibility of solution partnerships within the context of the practice-based education model (7 items). Proportion of concept courses and branded courses within the curriculum. Contribution of the concept courses in the format of solution partnerships to the practice-based education model (10 items). Contribution of the branded courses in the format of solution partnerships to the practice-based education model (19 items). Contribution of the committees and boards to the practice-based education model (8 items). Contribution of the policy development and implementation offices to the practice-based education model (8 items). Contribution of the governance model (organization, coordination and leadership) to the operation of the practice-based education model (20 items).

Practice-based education (On-the-job training) model Criteria for evaluating the design and performance of the concept of practice-based education are: (i) the degree to which the design of the graduate profile allows for the practice-based education model; (ii) the degree to which the compulsory-elective course ratio and its design allow for the practice-based education model; (iii) the degree to which the design of the teaching and learning ways of courses allow for the practice-based education model; (iv) the degree to which the design of the concept and branded courses and form of acquisition of their learning outcomes allow for the practice-based education model; (v) compatibility level of the design of the practice-based education model in the diploma & certificate forms with the vision and aims of the university; (vi) the degree to which the physical, financial and infrastructural facilities of the University permit the practice-based education model; (vii) the degree to which the academic and research staff of the university allow for the practice-based education model; (viii) the degree to which the design of the higher education qualifications framework allows for the practice-based education model; (ix) the degree to which the design of the program key learning outcomes (PKLOs) allows for the practice-based education model; (x) the degree to which the learning outcomes of the courses (LOs) allow for the practice-based education model; (xi) the degree to which the design of the solution partnerships allows for the practice-based education model; (xii) The degree to which the design of the boards and the committees allows for the practice-based education model; (xiii) the degree to which the offices of the policy development and implementation allow for the practice-based education model; (xiv) the degree to which the governance model of the university allows for the practice-based education model.

Istanbul University, Department of Economics BEYAZIT-FATIH ISTANBUL Thank you for your patience! A model proposal for new generation university in the light of digitalized society: The Case of Turkish University System Prof. Dr. Metin TOPRAK Istanbul University, Department of Economics BEYAZIT-FATIH ISTANBUL metin.toprak@İstanbul.edu.tr +90 533 6086469