Avrupa Birliği projelerinin yenilikçilik ve iyi uygulamaları teşvik etmedeki rolü: Okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri

Year 2024, , 1036 - 1052, 29.09.2024

Mete Sipahioglu , Başak Coşkun

https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1426834

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki okul müdürlerinin Avrupa Birliği projeleriyle ilgili tecrübelerini ve bakış açılarını inceleyerek; projelerin eğitimde yenilik ve iyi uygulamaları desteklemedeki faydalarını ve proje uygulamada karşılaşılan zorlukları ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Nitel yöntem ve olgu bilim deseninde yürütülen bu çalışmada, Türkiye'nin farklı şehir ve okul türlerinde görev yapan 20 okul müdürüyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin betimsel analizi sonucu, AB projelerinin pedagojik yaklaşımlara, müfredata, teknoloji entegrasyonuna ve uluslararası iş birliklerine etkisi konusunda temalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bulgular, projelerin bu okullarındaki öğrenci merkezli ve işbirliğine dayalı öğrenmeyi desteklediğini; disiplinlerarası ve küresel perspektiflerin geliştiğini; eğitimde dijitalleşme ve harmanlanmış öğrenmeyi yaygınlaştırdığını, ayrıca kültürlerarası etkileşim ve profesyonel gelişimin de uluslararası işbirliklerinin sonuçları arasında olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak bu projelerin uygulanmasında kaynak yetersizliği ve mesleki gelişim ihtiyacı gibi zorluklarla da karşılaşıldığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma, Türkiye'de eğitimde yeniliklerin ve iyi uygulamaların teşvikinde AB projelerinin rolünü açıklamakta alanyazına katkı sağlarken, politika yapıcılar ile okul yöneticilerine pratik öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

AB Projeleri, Okul Müdürleri, Yenilikler, İyi Uygulamalar, Uluslararası İşbirlikleri

The effect of European Union project on innovativeness and good practices: School principals' perspectives

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the benefits of EU projects in supporting innovation and good practices in education and uncover the challenges faced in project processes through examining the experiences and perspectives of school principals in Türkiye. The study conducted with qualitative research and phenomenological approach involved semi-structured interviews with 20 school principals serving in cities with different population sizes and school levels in Türkiye. The descriptive analysis of the data yielded themes regarding the impact of the EU projects on pedagogical approaches, curriculum development, technology integration and international cooperation. The findings underscore that the EU projects contribute to student centred and collaborative learning; improve interdisciplinary and global perspectives; disseminate digital and hybrid learning; result in intercultural interaction and professional development. However, the findings also presented that the implementation of the projects bore some challenges related to resource shortage and need for professional development. The study contributes to the literature by providing an insight into the role of the EU projects in encouraging innovation in education in Türkiye, and giving practical implications to policymakers and school leaders.

Keywords

EU projects, School principals, Innovations, Good practices, International cooperation

References

• Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2007). Systemic change for school improvement. Journal of educational and psychological consultation, 17(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410709336590
• Akbulut, Y. (2019). The impact of European Union projects on school innovation: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 5(1), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v5i1.608
• Akyüz, G. (2015). Views of Turkish principals and teachers on the impact of European Union education projects: Challenges for sustainability. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(3), 709-724. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2345
• Almasi, J. F. (2016). Crossing boundaries in literacy research: Challenges and opportunities. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1), 24-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336916661542
• Arnold, R., & Wade, J. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Constellation Project. https://doi.org/10.15624/issn.2381-3199
• Bahadır, H. (2007). Comenius projelerinden faydalanma konusunda okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Kırıkkale Üniversitesi.
• Balcı, D. (2022). A LEADER tedbiri yaklaşımı ve Türkiye’deki iyi uygulama örnekleri. Eurasian Journal Of Agricultural Economics (EJAE), 2(2), 32-41.
• Bardakcı, V., & Aksu, A. (2019). Okul müdürlerinin liderlik stilleri ile Avrupa Birliği projelerinin okula katkı düzeyi arasındaki ilişki. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.19160/ijer.468460
• Başaran, M., Kumru, S., Derya, A. C. A. R., Kayıklık, F., & Vural, Ö. F. (2021). Ar-Ge çalışmalarının okullar üzerine etkisinin erasmus+ projeleri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 7(3), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.47714/uebt.978486
• Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Kern, M. (2020). Managing multicultural teams. M. L. Di Domenico, S. Vangen, N. Winchester, D. K. Boojihawon & J. Mordaunt (Eds.) Organizational collaboration (s. 155-164). Routledge.
• Budnyk, O. (2019). Innovative competence of a teacher: best European practices. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Series of Social and Human Sciences, (6, no. 1), 76-89.
• Cebeci, E. K., & Bülent, A. L. C. I. (2022). Okul eğitimi personel hareketliliği programının (Erasmus+ KA101) değerlendirilmesi. IJSS, 6(25), 29-55. https://doi.org/10.52096/usbd.6.25.3
• Chynoweth, P. (2008). Legal research. A. Knight & L. Ruddock (Eds.) Advanced research methods in the built environment (s. 28-48). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Cooper, H. E., Camic, P. M., Long, D. L., Panter, A. T., Rindskopf, D. E., & Sher, K. J. (2012). APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. x-701). American Psychological Association.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Devletations.
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
• Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, M. J. Bishop (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (s. 841-853). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68
• de Castro, M. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2022). Examples of good practices in Erasmus+ projects that ıntegrate gender and STEM in higher education. F. J. García-Peñalvo, A. García-Holgado, A. Dominguez, J. Pascual (Eds.) Women in stem in higher education. good practices of attraction, access, and retainment in higher education (s. 181-197). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1552-9_10
• Dolapçıoğlu, S., & Girişken, M. C. (2022). Avrupa Birliği projeleri: Erasmus+ Programı ve eylem planları. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(49), 296-317.
• Dönmez, B., & Sincar, M. (2008). Avrupa birliği sürecinde yükselen ağ toplumu ve eğitim yöneticileri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(24), 1-19. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esosder/issue/6138/82338
• Driessen, G., Smit, F., Sleegers, P., & van den Akker, J. (2016). The professional development of principals in innovative schools: A European comparative perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 220-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214553095
• Driessen, G., Smit, F., Sleegers, P., & van den Akker, J. (2016). A systematic review of the interventions designed to promote principal leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 874-896. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215617243
• DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
• DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree Press.
• Haspolat, E., & Ozkilic, R. (2007). The opinions of Comenius school partnership project coordinators about projects process. Eurasıan Journal of Educatıonal Research, 7(27), 163-177. https://ejer.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ejer_2007_issue_27.pdf
• Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
• Ellis, T., & Hafner, W. (2008). Building a framework to support project-based collaborative learning experiences in an asynchronous learning network. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4(1), 167-190.
• Fazekas, Á. (2018). The impact of EU‐funded development interventions on teaching practices in Hungarian schools. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12295
• Ghavifekr, S. (2020). Collaborative learning: A key to enhance students’ social ınteraction skills. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(4), 9-21.
• Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 239, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
• Graham, M. A. (2009). The power of art in multicultural education: The international stories project. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(3), 155-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1514908
• Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Review, 16(1), 21-46. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/24421/
• Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.002
• Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Dalgıç, G. (2010). Eğitim yöneticileri teknoloji liderliği standartlarına ilişkin öğretmen, yönetici ve denetmenlerin görüşleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 4(4), 535-579.
• Hajisoteriou, C., Maniatis, P., & Angelides, P. (2019). Teacher professional development for improving the intercultural school: an example of a participatory course on stereotypes. Education Inquiry, 10(2), 166-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1514908
• Harris, J., Spina, N., Ehrich, L., & Smeed, J. (2013). Literature review: Student-centred schools make the difference. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Australia. 28.06.2024 tarihinde https://eprints.qut.edu.au/69161/1/69161.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. U. E. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961
• Honingh, M., & Hooge, E. (2014). The effect of school-leader support and participation in decision making on teacher collaboration in Dutch primary and secondary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(1), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499256
• Jones, C. (2010). Interdisciplinary approach-advantages, disadvantages, and the future benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSAI, 7(1), 26. 28.06.2024 tarihinde http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/26 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Kanakia, R. (2007). Talk touts benefits of interdisciplinary approach, as well as some of its pitfalls. Stanford Report.
• Kapur, A. (2020). Blended learning - how global education system is merging best learning practices? International Journal of Advanced Academic Studies, 2(3), 625-628. https://doi.org/10.33545/27068919.2020.v2.i3i.325
• Kesik, F., & Balcı, E. (2016). AB projelerinin okullara sağladığı katkılar açısından değerlendirilmesi: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(4), 1621-1640.
• Klaassen, R. G. (2018). Interdisciplinary education: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(6), 842-859. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1442417
• Kulaksız, E. (2010). Avrupa Birliği Comenius programlarının Türkiye'deki uygulamasına ilişkin katılımcı görüşleri (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Kocaeli Üniversitesi.
• Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2009). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiries. D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of literacy (s. 149-165). Cambridge University Press.
• Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: What is it?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.153
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
• Messnarz, R., Likar, B., Mack, J., Schröttner, E., Ekert, D., Hartyanyi, M., ... & Szabo, J. (6-8 Eylül 2017). InnoTEACH–applying principles of innovation in school; systems, software and services process improvement. (Konferans bildirisi) 24th European Conference, EuroSPI 2017, Ostrava, Czech Republic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_24
• Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Method, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
• O'Fathaigh, M. (2 Mart 2001). E-learning and access: Some issues and implications (Konferans bildirisi). Irish Institute of Training and Development National Conference Dublin, İrlanda.
• Özmen, F., & Yasan, T. (2007). Türk Eğitim Sisteminde denetim ve Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri ile karşılaştırılması. Fırat Üniversitesi Doğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 204-210.
• Papadakis, S. (2016). Creativity and innovation in European education. Ten years eTwinning. Past, present and the future. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(3-4), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2016.082315
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE Devletations. Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. WestED.
• Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. WestED.
• Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2016). A situated account of teacher agency and its implications for large-scale education reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.013
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
• Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal Of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0
• Selimi, A., & Üseini, A. (4-7 Nisan 2019). Yenilikçi eğitim ile dijital yetkinlik ve girişimcilik becerilerinin geliştirilmesi–Kuzey Makedonya örneği (Konferans bildirisi). ICEB'19-International Congress of Economics and Business, Bursa, Türkiye.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.
• Severiens, S., Meeuwisse, M., & Born, M. (2015). Student experience and academic success: Comparing a student-centred and a lecture-based course programme. Higher Education, 70, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-014-9820-3
• Shiel, C. (2013). Developing global perspectives: global citizenship and sustainable development within higher education (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Bournemouth University.
• Smith, J. A. (2018). “Yes it is phenomenological”: A reply to Max Van Manen’s critique of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 28(12), 1955-1958. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318799577
• Thomson, P., & Comber, B. (2003). Deficient" disadvantaged students" or media-savvy meaning makers? engaging new metaphors for redesigning classrooms and pedagogies. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 305-328.
• Usta, M. E., & Çakır, F. (2023). Erasmus+ projeleri kapsamında yurtdışına çıkmış olan eğitimcilerin küreselleşmeye ilişkin görüşleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 18(2), 467-487. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.63533
• Yang, M. (2009). Making interdisciplinary subjects relevant to students: An interdisciplinary approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(6), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903315019
• Yanniris, C. (2021). Education for sustainability, peace, and global citizenship: An integrative approach. Education Sciences, 11(8), 430. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080430
• Yılmaz, B. (2012). İlk ve ortaöğretim (okullar), yükseköğretim, yetişkin eğitimi ve mesleki eğitim sektörlerinde bilgi okuryazarlığı: EMPATIC Projesi bulguları ve karar vericiler için öneriler. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 26(3), 578-591.
• Yonezawa, S., McClure, L., & Jones, M. (2012). Personalization in schools. Education Digest, 78(2), 41-47.
• Young, T., & Lewis, W. D. (2015). Educational policy implementation revisited. Educational Policy, 29(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815568936
• Zhu, C., & Engels, N. (2014). Organizational culture and instructional innovations in higher education: Perceptions and reactions of teachers and students. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(1), 136-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499253